Can we require 2 reviewers for all PRs? The current proposal suggests that trivial changes just need 1 review - but this complicates adding automated rules in Github.
https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/52 If we make 2 the min number of reviews then the larger or more complicated changes will be enforced to have 2 reviews before merges are allowed. On 2022/11/08 04:56:22 Salar Rahmanian wrote: > +1 to use wiki like Cassandra project. > > -- > Regards, > Salar Rahmanian > email: [email protected] > > On 11/3/22 1:30 AM, Claude Warren, Jr wrote: > > We do have a wiki. The Cassandra project has CEPs created in the Cassandra > > wiki [1]. This keeps long documents out of the email list and provides a > > single Apache controlled space to record the permanent documents. I think > > we should make use of the pekko wiki to document all processes and PIPs as > > well as provide other information that users/developers may want. > > > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95652201 > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 1:47 AM Greg Methvin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> +1 on all these suggestions. > >> > >> We also have to decide on the details of how PIP should work. My rough idea > >> is: > >> 1. Create a PIP ticket on GitHub using a predefined PIP template. > >> 2. Start a discussion on the mailing list referencing the ticket. > >> 3. Once a consensus is reached, perform a vote using the Apache voting > >> process. > >> 4. If the PIP passes, the author and other contributors create PRs > >> referencing the original PIP ticket on GitHub. Code review follows the > >> normal code review process. > >> > >> I'm thinking we probably should have an entirely separate PIP section in > >> our process doc? > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 7:05 AM Claude Warren, Jr > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> I suggest changing "Examples of such issues include:" to "Examples of > >> such > >>> issues include, but are not limited to:" > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 1:46 PM Matthew Benedict de Detrich > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> New point 3 (pushing down existing point 3 to 4, etc.) > >>>> 3. For major/breaking changes, we require that a Pekko Improvement > >>>> Process (PIP) proposal is submitted on the dev mailing list before a > >>>> PR is made. After allowing some time for discussion, a vote will be > >>>> required on the dev mailing list using the code modifications process > >>>> documented in the Apache voting process document. When we have general > >>>> agreement on the proposal, we can proceed to submitting PRs. Examples > >>>> of such issues include: > >>>> a. new Pekko features/libraries > >>>> b. changes to public APIs > >>>> c. significant upgrades to jar dependencies > >>>> d. changes to wire protocol > >>>> e. large changes across many Pekko components > >>>> > >>>> My suggestion would be to further equivocate this so that its more > >>>> accurate. For example, for both the contributors and users of Akka (and > >>> now > >>>> Pekko), breaking binary compatibility is something that was checked > >> with > >>>> sbt-mima (see https://github.com/lightbend/mima). Furthermore, > >> forwards > >>>> breaking changes that weren’t major was actually allowed in with just a > >>>> standard basic review (which also involved putting in ProblemFilters > >> into > >>>> sbt-mima, see the currently existing mina-filters folders). Such > >> changes > >>>> were also sometimes put behind the @ApiMayChange annotation if there > >> was > >>> a > >>>> chance that the API may change future because but the merits of adding > >> in > >>>> the change outweighed perfect stability, this was quite a common > >>> occurrence > >>>> in fast moving modules such as akka (and now pekko) streams > >>>> > >>>> There is also another @InternalApi annotation whereby you can break > >>>> anything you want and is only meant for internal use. > >>>> > >>>> It would be good to also add these details into the process document. I > >>>> think there is a lot of merit in being quite precise here for what > >>> requires > >>>> a Pekko Improvement Proposal because we can run the risk of making it > >> to > >>>> budersome to contribute to Pekko if the keep on throwing the “this > >> needs > >>> a > >>>> Pekko Improvement Proposal” due to unclear rules. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Matthew de Detrich > >>>> Aiven Deutschland GmbH > >>>> Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > >>>> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > >>>> > >>>> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > >>>> m: +491603708037 > >>>> w: aiven.io e: [email protected] > >>>> On 2. Nov 2022, 14:34 +0100, PJ Fanning <[email protected]>, wrote: > >>>>> Can I suggest these amendments to > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PEKKO/Processes ? I'm > >>>>> happy for any of these proposed changes to be adjusted or discussed > >>>>> further. > >>>>> > >>>>> Change > >>>>> 1. Defects are recorded in the git issue for the associated Pekko > >>> module. > >>>>> to > >>>>> 1. Defects are recorded in the Github issue tracker for the > >> associated > >>>>> Pekko module. > >>>>> > >>>>> New point 3 (pushing down existing point 3 to 4, etc.) > >>>>> 3. For major/breaking changes, we require that a Pekko Improvement > >>>>> Process (PIP) proposal is submitted on the dev mailing list before a > >>>>> PR is made. After allowing some time for discussion, a vote will be > >>>>> required on the dev mailing list using the code modifications process > >>>>> documented in the Apache voting process document. When we have > >> general > >>>>> agreement on the proposal, we can proceed to submitting PRs. Examples > >>>>> of such issues include: > >>>>> a. new Pekko features/libraries > >>>>> b. changes to public APIs > >>>>> c. significant upgrades to jar dependencies > >>>>> d. changes to wire protocol > >>>>> e. large changes across many Pekko components > >>>>> > >>>>> Change 3c (which becomes 4c because of new point 3 above) > >>>>> > >>>>> c. if a Pekko committer requests that the PR changes should be > >>>>> discussed more widely, the changes should be discussed on the dev > >>>>> mailing list and voted on using the code modifications process > >>>>> documented in the Apache voting process document. > >>>>> > >>>>> Change 5c (which becomes 6c because of new point 3 above) > >>>>> > >>>>> c. if a Pekko committer requests that the PR changes should be > >>>>> discussed more widely, the changes should be discussed on the dev > >>>>> mailing list and voted on using the code modifications process > >>>>> documented in the Apache voting process document. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 09:55, Claude Warren, Jr > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> One of the first things this team needs to do is to decide how > >>>> development > >>>>>> will be done. I have drafted a process document to kick this > >>> discussion > >>>>>> off. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The draft document is found at > >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PEKKO/Processes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For purposes of this discussion: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. No changes will be made until a code modification vote is taken. > >>> See > >>>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html for requirements. > >> For > >>>>>> those of you who have edit access to the document please do not > >>> change > >>>> it > >>>>>> until we have a vote. > >>>>>> 2. Committers and Mentors have binding votes. All other votes are > >>>>>> advisory. > >>>>>> 3. Discussions of proposed changes must be posted to the > >>>>>> [email protected] mailing list and the subject should be > >> prefixed > >>>>>> with "[DISCUSS]". > >>>>>> 4. Calls for votes on the proposed changes must be made on the > >>>>>> [email protected] mailing list and the subject should be > >> prefixed > >>>>>> with "[VOTE]" to make it easy to identify. > >>>>>> 5. Results of votes will be published on the dev mailing list with > >>>>>> "[RESULT]" prefixing the subject. > >>>>>> 6. A vote to accept the document may be taken once all proposed > >>> changes > >>>>>> are voted on. > >>>>>> 7. A vote to accept the document will close all discussion under > >> the > >>>>>> process documented in this email > >>>>>> 8. Once the document is accepted any subsequent changes will be > >>>>>> performed as specified in the accepted process document. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The purpose of this exercise is to arrive at a consensus for how > >> this > >>>>>> project will operate within the guidelines and requirements of the > >>>> Apache > >>>>>> organization. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for participating, > >>>>>> Claude > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> > -- > Regards, > Salar Rahmanian > email: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
