+1 (binding) for suggestion around framing CODEOWNERS functionality as the watchlist. I also feel that we should enable and find/request more than 1 person per module to help the project.
But, still, if it is something like +1 or watch button for modules rather than a new PR to follow a topic, it would have been great. Something for future :-) Regards, Sandeep On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Steffen Rochel <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Chris for the great reading suggestion > <http://www.unterstein.net/su/docs/CathBaz.pdf>! > > I'm suggesting that we adopt Mu's proposal to use github code owner > mechanism to identify designated maintainer for each package. > To address the concerns raised in this thread I proposed > to add into the header of the CODEOWNERS file > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9426 > (changes below). > > Chris, Sebastian, Isabel - please suggest changes, but I hope I addressed > your concerns. > > In the future we can also enable required reviews (see > https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-reviews/), but I would > suggest to make one change at a time. > > I do suggest we should explore how we can best adopt existing github > features before considering building additional CI tasks. > > Steffen > > # Please see documentation of use of CODEOWNERS file at > # https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/ and > # https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners > # > # The first owner listed for a package is considered the maintainer for a > package. > # Anybody can add themselves or a team (see > https://help.github.com/articles/about-teams/) > # as additional owners to get notified about changes in a specific package. > # > # By default the package maintainer should merge PR after appropriate > review. > # A PR which received 2 +1 (or LGTM) comments can be merged by any > committer. > # In the future we might consider adopting required reviews > # (see https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-reviews/) > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:22 PM Bhavin Thaker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > During the MXNet 1.0 release, there was feedback from the mentors and > folks > > in general@ to clarify at the top of the CODEOWNERs file on what the > > contents of this file meant. > > > > Hi Mu, > > > > Please add the description of the file in the file header. I expect that > > this will be a requirement for the next MXNet release 1.0.1. > > > > Thanks, > > Bhavin Thaker. > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:43 PM Chris Olivier <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > i’d be +1 if CODEOWNERS file has a big note at the top saying basically > > > it’s just for watching code changes that you’d like to know about (to > > > review or just to follow) and that anyone can add themself. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:58 PM Chris Olivier <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Does it have to be called "CODEOWNERS"? I would be more comfortable > > with > > > > it if it's a "watch list" where it just means you wish to watch code > > here > > > > or there in the source structure and anyone can add or remove their > > name > > > > from watching some part of the code at any time. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I agree. How about we find another way to allow people to subscribe > > for > > > >> changes in a specific file or directory? > > > >> > > > >> -Marco > > > >> > > > >> Am 12.01.2018 8:51 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < > > > [email protected] > > > >> >: > > > >> > > > >> > Have you read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"? > > > >> > > > > >> > http://www.unterstein.net/su/docs/CathBaz.pdf > > > >> > > > > >> > One of the points I took from this is that once a project finds > its > > > >> stride, > > > >> > it actually runs more efficiently without centralization than > with. > > > >> > > > > >> > -Chris > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi Chris, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > you have a good point about people being afraid of reviewing PRs > > > which > > > >> > they > > > >> > > are not assigned to and I totally agree that we should encourage > > > >> > everybody > > > >> > > to review PRs. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > One important advantage I see in this is the notification: since > > we > > > >> are > > > >> > not > > > >> > > using the feature to required an approval, this step is entirely > > for > > > >> > > information purpose. I, for example, would like to get notified > > if a > > > >> PR > > > >> > to > > > >> > > change a CI file would be created. Just as an example: over > > > >> Christmas, a > > > >> > PR > > > >> > > to update mkl has been pushed without me knowing about it. > > Somehow, > > > >> after > > > >> > > my vacation, we started to get issues with mkl test - I only > found > > > out > > > >> > > about this PR after quite a long investigation. If we would > extend > > > the > > > >> > > usage of the code maintainers, we'll make sure that changes like > > > these > > > >> > will > > > >> > > notify the people who have the best knowledge about that part. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Marco > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Am 12.01.2018 8:03 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> > >: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -1 (binding) > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I totally understand the motivation for this (I've definitely > > > saved > > > >> > > myself > > > >> > > > some grief by getting called out automatically for > > CMakeLists.txt > > > >> > stuff, > > > >> > > > for example), but I respectfully decline for the following > > > >> reason(s): > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I feel that defining code-owners has some negative effects. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Other committers may be reluctant to start reviewing and > > approving > > > >> PRs > > > >> > > > since they aren't the one listed, so I feel this will in the > > > >> long-run > > > >> > > > reduce the number of people doing code reviews. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > If there aren't enough people doing PR's, then people can > > complain > > > >> on > > > >> > > dev@ > > > >> > > > asking for review. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -Chris > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Haibin Lin < > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > +1 (binding) > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On 2018-01-12 10:10, kellen sunderland < > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Jan 12, 2018 6:32 PM, "Steffen Rochel" < > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I propose to adopt the proposal. > > > >> > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Steffen > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 8:39 PM Mu Li < > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Isabel, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > My apologies that not saying that clearly. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The purpose of this proposal is encouraging more > > > >> contributors > > > >> > to > > > >> > > > help > > > >> > > > > > > > review and merge PRs. And also hope to shorten the > time > > > for > > > >> a > > > >> > PR > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > merged. After assigning maintainers to modules, then > PR > > > >> > > > contributors > > > >> > > > > can > > > >> > > > > > > > easily contact the reviewers. In other words, github > > will > > > >> > > > > automatically > > > >> > > > > > > > assign the PR to the maintainer and send a > notification > > > >> email. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think I put the term "inbox" in my proposal. I > > > never > > > >> > > > > discussed > > > >> > > > > > > PRs > > > >> > > > > > > > with other contributors by sending email directly, > which > > > is > > > >> > less > > > >> > > > > > > effective > > > >> > > > > > > > than just using github. I also don't aware any other > > > >> > contributor > > > >> > > > use > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > direct email way. So I didn't clarify it on the > > proposal. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Isabel Drost-Fromm < > > > >> > > > > [email protected]> > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Am 9. Januar 2018 18:25:50 MEZ schrieb Mu Li < > > > >> > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > >: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >We should encourage to contract a specific > > contributor > > > >> for > > > >> > > > issues > > > >> > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > >PRs. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > My head translates "encourage to contact specific > > > >> > contributor" > > > >> > > > into > > > >> > > > > > > > > "encourage to contact specific contributors inbox". > > This > > > >> > > > translated > > > >> > > > > > > > version > > > >> > > > > > > > > is what I would highly discourage. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > See the disclaimer here for reasons behind that: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://home.apache.org/~hossman/#private_q > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Isabel > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > >> > > > > > > > > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit > K-9 > > > >> Mail > > > >> > > > > gesendet. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Sandeep Krishnamurthy
