Generally if a person is trusted to review code they should be considered as a committer. Agree that having good reviewers are important but the way most projects recognize those efforts is by making them committers.
- Bob On 10/22/2018 5:23 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? I > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules from > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating outside of > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are only > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting into > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good precedents. > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org> wrote: > >> The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code >> reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and >> high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so >> as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, the >> code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as >> the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I >> usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they >> help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. >> >> However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless we >> solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions. The >> Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize >> contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code >> reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the >> committer reviews, >> which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, this >> likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. >> >> Cheers >> Tianqi >> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh <anirudh2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally am >> for >>> recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them >>> committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a >>> committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between >> PPMC >>> and committers). >>> >>> Anirudh >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan <lanking...@live.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as >> C++, >>>> Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In the >>>> future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this >> kind >>>> of documentation. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Qing >>>> >>>> On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" <eazhi....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that >>>> developers can easily request review from those reviewers. >>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I was suggesting something more concrete: >>>> > >>>> > - Add a Reviewers section to >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md >> to >>>> > list a list of Reviewers. >>>> > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers >>> should >>>> highly >>>> > value their reviews during the PR process. >>>> > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors >> and >>>> nominate >>>> > them as Reviewer. >>>> > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of >>>> reviewers. >>>> > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the >>>> reviewers >>>> > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious >>> consideration. >>>> > >>>> > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current >>>> Reviewers >>>> > - Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will >>>> provide a >>>> > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality >>>> standard of >>>> > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait >> that >>>> needed >>>> > from committer to merge code) >>>> > >>>> > Tianqi >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel < >>>> steffenroc...@gmail.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > +1 >>>> > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors >>> incl. >>>> code >>>> > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release >>>> announcements >>>> > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to >> highlight >>>> most >>>> > > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g. >>>> monthly), >>>> > > specifically from non-committers? >>>> > > >>>> > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen < >> tqc...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > > Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my >>>> institutional email >>>> > > > which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit >> duplication >>>> of that). >>>> > > I >>>> > > > think it should really be the job of committers to recognize >>>> potential >>>> > > > reviewers, github also makes it easier to do so, e.g. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=reviewed-by%3Apiiswrong >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Tianqi >>>> > > > >>>> > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Carin Meier < >>>> carinme...@gmail.com> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > +1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list is a >>> good >>>> idea. >>>> > > > Also, >>>> > > > > I've found that thanking the person for the review on the >> PR >>>> is another >>>> > > > way >>>> > > > > to express gratitude for their time and effort. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen < >>> tqc...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > Dear MXNet Community: >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering >>>> the barrier >>>> > > > of >>>> > > > > > entries and encourage more contribution to the project. >>> One >>>> of the >>>> > > > > general >>>> > > > > > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I >>>> want to make >>>> > > > the >>>> > > > > > following proposal: >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize >> Reviewers >>>> in the >>>> > > > > > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such >>>> official role >>>> > > > in >>>> > > > > > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of >>> recognizing >>>> active >>>> > > > > > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the >>>> contributor >>>> > > > list. >>>> > > > > > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code >>>> reviews. >>>> > > > > > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find >>> committer >>>> > > > candidates, >>>> > > > > > and encourage them to contribute and understand what is >> the >>>> bar of >>>> > > code >>>> > > > > > quality that is required to merge the code. >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > This can provide the community with more evidence when >>>> recruiting new >>>> > > > > > committers. After all the write access of committership >> is >>>> about to >>>> > > the >>>> > > > > > code and understand the consequence of the responsibility >>> -- >>>> which is >>>> > > > > > usually can be found in high-quality review history. >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Please let me know what you think. >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Tianqi >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Yizhi Liu >>>> DMLC member >>>> Amazon Web Services >>>> Vancouver, Canada >>>> >>>> >>>>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
