Yes, that is an important clarification of the new policy. Thanks.

-- Kevin


On 6/12/2018 1:55 PM, Phil Race wrote:
One other point .. something I mentioned off line to Kevin but he did not so far bring up here, is that when counting the number of reviewers on a fix, we must require at least one Reviewer, with a capital "R", but to make up the total of 2 reviewers, it is sufficient to have one other person who only has committer status .. or even author status (maybe), be the second reviewer. We've used this policy on the JDK AWT/2D/Swing stack for a long time. It not only frees up the scarce "R"eviewers, but it helps train new ones :-), whilst still ensuring at least two sets of eye balls
were on it.

-phil.

On 05/24/2018 10:36 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Phil pointed out one glaring typo in the summary and also a couple things in the details that could be clarified.

The short version of the proposal is:
...
2. Revised code review policies for different types of changes: simple, low-impact fixes (1 Reviewer); higher-impact fixes (2 Reviewers + allow time for others to chime in); Features / API changes (CSR approval, including approval by a "lead", plus 3 Reviewers for the code)


That last been should be: CSR approval, including approval by a "lead", plus *2* Reviewers for the code. I had it right in the details, but made a typo in the short version. While some reviews might have more than 2, it was certainly not my intent to mandate it.

A. Low-impact bug fixes. ...
One reviewer is sufficient to accept such changes. As a courtesy, and to avoid changes which later might need to be backed out, if you think there might be some concern or objection to the change, please give sufficient time for folks who might be in other time zones the chance to take a look. This should be left up to the judgment of the reviewer who approves it as well as the contributor.

To clarify, the intent is to avoid pushing changes that might be controversial, and not to mandate unnecessary delay for truly simple fixes (e.g., fixing a build break). Reviewers and Committers are expected to use their best judgment here.

C. New features / API additions. This includes behavioral changes, additions to the fxml or css spec, etc.

... a New Feature, API addition, or behavioral change must be reviewed / approved by a "lead". Currently this is either myself or Johan Vos as indicated above.

I also propose that we continue to use the CSR process [3] to track such changes. The CSR chair has indicated that he is willing to track JavaFX compatibility changes even though FX is no longer a part of the JDK.

The "approval by lead" means approving the API / feature change via the CSR. A "lead" often will be one of the code reviewers as well, but need not be as long as they approve the API change itself via the CSR.

-- Kevin


On 5/23/2018 3:16 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
To: OpenJFX Developers

As I mentioned in a message last week [1] I would like to restart the discussion we started a few months ago [2] around making it easier to contribute code to OpenJFX. To this end, I like to make some concrete proposals around code review / API review policies.

Before getting to the details, I would like to acknowledge Gluon's contributions to the OpenJFX project, specifically those of Johan Vos. I am pleased to announce an expanded role for Johan Vos in the OpenJFX project. I would like to announce that starting now, Johan is effectively a co-lead for the purposes of setting direction, and approving new features for the Project.

The short version of the proposal is:

1. Formalize the concept of Reviewers with an initial list of Reviewers and a defined criteria for adding additional Reviewers.

2. Revised code review policies for different types of changes: simple, low-impact fixes (1 Reviewer); higher-impact fixes (2 Reviewers + allow time for others to chime in); Features / API changes (CSR approval, including approval by a "lead", plus 3 Reviewers for the code)

3. Streamlining reviews of changes developed in the GitHub sandbox: provided that the review policy is followed to before a PR is merged into the develop branch in GitHub, a fast-track review can happen pointing to the changeset that was merged and the PR, which has review comments.

Details follow.

Quoting from my earlier message:

"Code reviews are important to maintain high-quality contributions, but we recognize that not every type of change needs the same level of review. Without lowering our standards of quality, we want to make it easier to get low-impact changes (simple bug fixes) accepted."

To that end, I propose the following policies. Many of these will involve judgment calls, especially when it comes to deciding whether a fix is low impact vs. high-impact. I think that's OK. It doesn't have to be perfect.

Recommendations

1. I recommend that we formalize the concept of Reviewers, using the OpenJDK Reviewer role for the OpenJFX Project.

A. I will provide an initial list of reviewers to the registrar based on past contributions, and also recognizing Committers who have become experts in their area. This is the only time we will have such latitude as the OpenJDK Bylaws specify the policy we need to follow for nominating and voting upon additional Reviewers.

B. We need to set formal guidelines for becoming a Reviewer. The JDK uses a threshold of 32 significant contributions. While we don't want to relax it too much, one thing I have been discussing informally with a few people is that a Committer with, say, 24 commits, who regularly participates in reviews, offering good feedback, might be just a good a reviewer (maybe even better) than someone with 32 commits who rarely, if ever, provides feedback on proposed bug fixes. I'm open for suggestions here.

One thing I'd like to add is that we expect Reviewers to feel responsible not just for their piece, but for the quality of the JavaFX library as a whole. I might work with some folks at Gluon and here at Oracle to draft a set of expectations for reviewers.


2. Code review policies

All code reviews must be posted on the openjfx-dev mailing list -- even simple fixes. I propose that we have the following code review policies for different types of changes. I also note that if there is disagreement as to whether a fix is low-impact or high-impact, then it is considered high-impact. In other words we will always err on the side of quality by "rounding up" to the next higher category. The contributor can say whether they think something is low-impact or high-impact, but It is up to a Reviewer to initially decide this.

A. Low-impact bug fixes. These are typically isolated bug fixes with little or no impact beyond fixing the bug in question; included in this category are test fixes (including new tests), doc fixes, and fixes to sample applications (including new samples).

One reviewer is sufficient to accept such changes. As a courtesy, and to avoid changes which later might need to be backed out, if you think there might be some concern or objection to the change, please give sufficient time for folks who might be in other time zones the chance to take a look. This should be left up to the judgment of the reviewer who approves it as well as the contributor.

B. Higher impact bug fixes or RFEs. These include changes to the implementation that potentially have a performance or behavioral impact, or are otherwise broad in scope. Some larger bug fixes will fall into this category, as will fixes in high-risk areas (e.g., CSS).

Two reviewers must approve to accept such changes. Additionally, the review should allow sufficient time for folks who might be in other time zones the chance to review if they have concerns.

C. New features / API additions. This includes behavioral changes, additions to the fxml or css spec, etc.

Feature requests come with a responsibility beyond just saying "here is the code for this cool new feature, please take it". There are many factors to consider for even small features. Larger features will need a significant contribution in terms of API design, coding, testing, maintainability, etc.

To ensure that new features are consistent with the rest of the API and the desired direction of the Project, I propose that a New Feature, API addition, or behavioral change must be reviewed / approved by a "lead". Currently this is either myself or Johan Vos as indicated above.

I also propose that we continue to use the CSR process [3] to track such changes. The CSR chair has indicated that he is willing to track JavaFX compatibility changes even though FX is no longer a part of the JDK.

For the review of the implementation, I propose that we use the same "two reviewer" standard for the code changes as category B.


3. Streamlining the review process for changes developed on GitHub

A fix that was developed as pull-requests (PRs) on GitHub is eligible for a fast-track review, if:

A. The PR was squashed / merged into the develop branch as a single changeset B. No follow-on changesets were merged into develop as part of that same fix C. The changeset is "whitespace clean" -- meaning that you have run 'tools/scripts/checkWhiteSpace' on the final changeset (we might want to add this to the CI build).
and
D. All code review policies outlined above in #2 were followed prior to the PR being approved and merged into the develop branch on GitHub. This includes sending email to openjfx-dev when you first make a PR that you intend to have merged into the develop branch to give other reviewers who may not be watching all PRs a chance to comment before it is merged.

A "fast-track" review is a quick sanity check before the change is committed and pushed to the jfx-dev repo on hg.openjdk.java.net. This fast track review just needs to point to the GitHub changeset that was merged and to the PR, which will have any review comments. If there are no compelling reasons why the PR can't be pushed to jfx-dev, then it can be pushed.


Please let me know your thoughts on the above proposals.

Thank you all for being a part of this community.

-- Kevin Rushforth, OpenJFX Project Lead

[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021867.html

[2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-February/021335.html

[3] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/csr/Main




Reply via email to