As someone who has actually been helping out setting up PRs to bootstrap pekko, due to the volume of trivial/mechanical PRs being created now I suspect that changing it to 2 reviewers would noticeably slow down the process.
To date the majority of such PRs have been created and/or reviewed by myself and PJ Fanning. To be clear, the trivial/mechanical PRs that are bring talked haven't touched the actual pekko behaviour in any way, it's mainly formatting/asm.yml to setup github repo settings/getting CI to work/disabling some sbt checks so sbt can actually start etc etc On Wed, 16 Nov 2022, 19:24 Josep Prat, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > In my opinion, I think we can go with 2 reviewers for all. In the > beginning we will have plenty of people who would review PRs. If the > process doesn't work we can start another discussion and see what we need > to change. > What do you all think? > > Best, > Josep > > On November 16, 2022 7:05:36 PM GMT+01:00, PJ Fanning < > [email protected]> wrote: > >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] > > >
