+1 for the line: # Anybody can add themselves -1 for all of the other lines, which revolve mostly around who is Maintainer/King of this part of the code or that, and rules for merging. Responsible committers can take it on a case-by-case basis.
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM, sandeep krishnamurthy < [email protected]> wrote: > +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 >
