Here it is: https://beam.apache.org/contribute/committer-guide/#always-get-to-lgtm-looks-good-to-me
But it should also be in the beginner contributor guide, that they can review code as a way to get started. Of course, unsolicited feedback is not always welcome, so a code author needs a way to connect with them and request their review. Kenn On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:22 AM Lars Francke <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, that's a good idea. I remember the discussion, you're doing lots of > good things in the Beam project. That's a good way to get new contributors > on board and in the watchlist for new committers. > > As far as I can tell this is not written down in your Contributors guide. > Do you have it somewhere else or is this "informal"? > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:02 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Interesting idea about the 72 hour lazy consensus for committing. Vaguely > > related is that you can commit without review if the build is broken, > since > > it is emergency. But you are still required to open a pull request and > > merge your own pull request, so everyone can see and comment on it later. > > > > Also, a thing that works really well for Beam is RTC where if the author > is > > a committer, the reviewer can be a non-committer. You could also have > lazy > > consensus after 72 hours for minor changes, but might not need it if you > > can trust a committer to choose a good enough non-committer reviewer. > > > > Kenn > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:36 AM Craig Russell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Lars, > > > > > > I think we might codify this as RTC with an exception that if someone > > > wants to commit a trivial or non-controversial patch, they still need > to > > > post the patch for review and specifically request lazy consensus after > > 72 > > > hours or some other time we deem relevant to this project. > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2019, at 2:21 AM, Lars Francke <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:34 PM Craig Russell <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On Mar 11, 2019, at 6:35 AM, Lars Francke <[email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Okay, any other opinions? > > > >>> > > > >>> I don't necessarily need "Bylaws" but a good "Contributors Guide" > is > > > one > > > >> of > > > >>> my pet peeves. So as soon as we have the website up and running I'd > > > like > > > >> to > > > >>> get some content up there. > > > >> > > > >> Yes, a contributors' guide is a great thing to add to the > user-facing > > > site. > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm usually in favor of review-then-commit but in our case I'm not > > sure > > > >> if > > > >>> that's always going to work. > > > >>> Ideally we'd have people contribute stuff that neither of us is - > > > >>> technically I mean - able to review as we won't have experts for > > every > > > >>> single field in the committership initially. > > > >>> But we can of course review for form and style etc. > > > >>> > > > >>> Other than that I'm in favor of requiring a +1 from another > committer > > > to > > > >>> commit anything but this can be painful for small things (e.g. a > > single > > > >>> typo). For Hive we established a rule that for small changes (at > > > >>> contributors discretion) after a delay/request for reviews of 72h > or > > so > > > >> it > > > >>> can be committed without feedback. > > > >> > > > >> This sounds reasonable. It's a combination of RTC and CTR with lazy > > > >> consensus. Formally, I think it would be described as CTR with > > > discretion > > > >> to wait until another committer has reviewed a "large" change. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I understand what you mean but I (others might disagree) would like > to > > > see > > > > it codified as RTC and have the commit without a review as the > > exception > > > > not the other way around. This has been a major pain for me as a > "lone" > > > > non-big-corporate contributor to various projects. You see things > > > happening > > > > without discussion on any public mailing list/Jira. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > >> > > > >> Craig > > > >>> > > > >>> Cheers, > > > >>> Lars > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:11 PM Sharan Foga <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'd be happy with having both models of Jira and Github in place > > too. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks > > > >>>> Sharan > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 2019/02/25 19:06:28, Lars Francke <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >>>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:37 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 2:31 PM Lars Francke < > > > [email protected]> > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Bylaws have gone out of fashion and it’s generally recommend > > that > > > >>>>>>> podlings > > > >>>>>>>> (and TLP) don’t have them and use the “default”. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Really? I didn't notice. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> As the default is often unclear I've created a default simple > > set > > > >>>> that > > > >>>>>>>> graduating projects can use, [1] Legal and board have reviewed > > > >>>> this. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> That's a good starting point. What I struggle with is that > every > > > >>>> project > > > >>>>>>> works slightly different in things like: Commit-then-review or > > > >>>>>>> review-then-commit or whether ReviewBoard needs to be used or > > > patches > > > >>>>>> need > > > >>>>>>> to be attached to Jira etc. > > > >>>>>>> These rules are often not written down which makes it hard to > > > >>>> contribute. > > > >>>>>>> This might be a particular pet-peeve of mine because I do - > > nature > > > >>>> of the > > > >>>>>>> job - lots of "drive by" contributions but I'd still love a > > clearly > > > >>>>>> defined > > > >>>>>>> set of rules on how we want to operate. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> This includes - and I don't actually know what works there > these > > > >>>> days and > > > >>>>>>> what doesn't - the Github use. > > > >>>>>>> If anyone knows what's allowed and possible it'd be great if > you > > > >>>> could > > > >>>>>>> share. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> At this point, the GitHub pull request model is a de facto > > standard > > > in > > > >>>> my > > > >>>>>> mind. It works great with ASF infra. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> The most important thing being that you don't have to read a > > > project's > > > >>>>>> contribution guide to know how to *request* that they *pull* > from > > > your > > > >>>> fork > > > >>>>>> of their code. Great for drive-by contributions. If a project > > > doesn't > > > >>>>>> basically follow this model, I don't trust them to accept > outside > > > >>>> input. We > > > >>>>>> should definitely use it. I would guess users will be much more > > > likely > > > >>>> to > > > >>>>>> also want to casually contribute bits here and there, compared > to > > > >> other > > > >>>>>> projects. Let's make it easy and fun for them (and bring them on > > > board > > > >>>> :-). > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I agree that lots of projects use it but most projects I work > with > > > work > > > >>>>> differently (e.g. Hadoop, Kafka, HBase etc.). Some do have a > model > > > >> where > > > >>>>> both ways are accepted (Jira & Github). I myself am not the > biggest > > > fan > > > >>>> of > > > >>>>> Pull requests. I'm against using it as the only option. I like > the > > > >>>>> "old-fashioned" way of attaching patches to Jira. It doesn't lock > > me > > > >>>> into a > > > >>>>> workflow provided by a 3rd party. I can download everything > offline > > > and > > > >>>>> prepare a review offline as well. That's not possible with Github > > (I > > > >> can > > > >>>>> download the code but I can't prepare a review for the website > > > >> offline). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> But as I said: I definitely agree that it makes "drive-by" > > > >> contributions > > > >>>>> easier so I'm in favor of having both models. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Lars > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Kenn > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>> Justin > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 1. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DefaultProjectGuidelines > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> Craig L Russell > > > >> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > > > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > > <mailto: > > > [email protected]>> http://db.apache.org/jdo <http://db.apache.org/jdo> < > > > >> http://db.apache.org/jdo <http://db.apache.org/jdo>> > > > > > > Craig L Russell > > > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://db.apache.org/jdo < > > > http://db.apache.org/jdo> > > > > > >
