Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Hi, so I saw mention bot working this week. How was the quality of suggestions? Holden, I would like to start testing Prow starting next week if that's possible. I'll be opening a ticket to INFRA to give my Github bot account read

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Summary doc for CODEOWNERS, Mention-bot, Prow: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S8spggJsxDNYZ7aNwZN6VhLhNW372SVRezjblt-7lNQ/edit?usp=sharing This doc will get updated as we gain experience with Mention-bot and Prow. On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:15 PM Udi Meiri wrote: > So I configured Prow

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

So I configured Prow using their getting started guide (and found a bug in it) on a test repo. TLDR: Prow can work for us as a review assignment tool if all potential reviewers are also added to the https://github.com/apache org. Some findings: 1. Github doesn't allow non-collaborators to be

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

It looks interesting but I would like to see the complete video and explanation about prow. Especially what we concretely need. Regards JB Le 24 juil. 2018 à 04:17, à 04:17, Udi Meiri a écrit: >I was recently told about Prow >, which

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

I was recently told about Prow , which automates testing and merging for Kubernetes and other projects. It also automates assigning reviewers and suggesting approvers. Example PR, video

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

+1 to generating the file. I'll go ahead and file a PR to remove CODEOWNERS On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:28 AM Holden Karau wrote: > So it doesn’t support doing that right now, although if we find it’s a > problem we can specify an exclude file with folks who haven’t contributed > in the past

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

So it doesn’t support doing that right now, although if we find it’s a problem we can specify an exclude file with folks who haven’t contributed in the past year. Would people want me to generate that first? On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:22 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Is there a way to put inactive

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Is there a way to put inactive people as not reviewers for the blame case? I think it can be useful considering that a good amount of our committers are not active at the moment and auto-assigning reviews to them seem like a waste of energy/time. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:58 AM Eugene Kirpichov

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

We did not, but I think we should. So far, in 100% of the PRs I've authored, the default functionality of CODEOWNERS did the wrong thing and I had to fix something up manually. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:42 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote: > This sounds like a good plan. Did we want to rename the

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

This sounds like a good plan. Did we want to rename the CODEOWNERS file to disable github's mass adding of reviewers while we figure this out? Andrew On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 > > Le 16 juil. 2018, à 19:17, Holden Karau a écrit: >> >> Ok if no one

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

+1 Le 16 juil. 2018 à 19:17, à 19:17, Holden Karau a écrit: > >Ok if no one objects I'll create the INFRA ticket after OSCON and we >can test it for a week and decide if it helps or hinders. > > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 7:12 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Ok if no one objects I'll create the INFRA ticket after OSCON and we can test it for a week and decide if it helps or hinders. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 7:12 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Agree to test it for a week. > > Regards > JB > Le 16 juil. 2018, à 18:59, Holden Karau a écrit: >> >>

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Agree to test it for a week. Regards JB Le 16 juil. 2018 à 18:59, à 18:59, Holden Karau a écrit: >Would folks be OK with me asking infra to turn on blame based >suggestions >for Beam and trying it out for a week? > >On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:53 PM Rafael Fernandez >wrote: > >> +1 using blame --

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Would folks be OK with me asking infra to turn on blame based suggestions for Beam and trying it out for a week? On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 6:53 PM Rafael Fernandez wrote: > +1 using blame -- nifty :) > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:31 AM Huygaa Batsaikhan > wrote: > >> +1. This is great. >> >> On

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

I personally like blame-based suggestions. The downside is that you effectively become a owner of anything you touch. Most of the time blame based suggestions will return multiple candidates. Could we use the CODEOWNERS file to filter down the suggestions? Andrew On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:31 AM

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

+1. This is great. On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 7:44 AM Udi Meiri wrote: > Mention bot looks cool, as it tries to guess the reviewer using blame. > I've written a quick and dirty script that uses only CODEOWNERS. > > Its output looks like: > $ python suggest_reviewers.py --pr 5940 >

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Mention bot looks cool, as it tries to guess the reviewer using blame. I've written a quick and dirty script that uses only CODEOWNERS. Its output looks like: $ python suggest_reviewers.py --pr 5940 INFO:root:Selected reviewer @lukecwik for:

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

I'm looking at something similar in the Spark project, and while it's now archived by FB it seems like something like https://github.com/facebookarchive/mention-bot might do what we want. I'm going to spin up a version on my K8 cluster and see if I can ask infra to add a webhook and if it works

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Sounds reasonable for now, thanks! It's unfortunate that Github's CODEOWNERS feature appears to be effectively unusable for Beam but I'd hope that Github might pay attention and fix things if we submit feedback, with us being one of the most active Apache projects - did anyone do this yet /

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

While I like the idea of having a CODEOWNERS file, the Github implementation is lacking: 1. Reviewers are automatically assigned at each push. 2. Reviewer assignment can be excessive (e.g. 5 reviewers in Eugene's PR 5940). 3. Non-committers aren't assigned as reviewers. 4. Non-committers can't

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Hi Etienne, Yes you could be as precise as you want. The paths I listed are just suggestions. :) On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 1:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > I think it's already do-able just providing the expected path. > > It's a good idea especially for the core. > > Regards > JB

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Hi, I think it's already do-able just providing the expected path. It's a good idea especially for the core. Regards JB On 13/07/2018 09:51, Etienne Chauchot wrote: > Hi Udi, > > I also have a question, related to what Eugene asked : I see that the > code paths are the ones of the modules.

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Hi Udi, I also have a question, related to what Eugene asked : I see that the code paths are the ones of the modules. Can we be more precise than that to assign reviewers ? As an example, I added myself to runner/core because I wanted to take a look at the PRs related to runner/core/metrics but

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Hi Udi, I see that the PR was merged - thanks! However it seems to have some unintended effects. On my PR https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5940 , I assigned a reviewer manually, but the moment I pushed a new commit, it auto-assigned a lot of other people to it, and I had to remove them. This

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

:/ That makes it a little less useful. On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:14 AM Tim Robertson wrote: > Hi Udi > > I asked the GH helpdesk and they confirmed that only people with write > access will actually be automatically chosen. > > It don't expect it should stop us using it, but we should be aware

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Hi Udi I asked the GH helpdesk and they confirmed that only people with write access will actually be automatically chosen. It don't expect it should stop us using it, but we should be aware that there are non-committers also willing to review. Thanks, Tim On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:24 PM,

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Idea looks good in general. Did you look into ways to keep this file up-to-date? For example we can run monthly job to see if owner was active during this period. --Mikhail Have feedback ? On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:56 AM Udi Meiri wrote: > Thanks all! > I'll try

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Thanks all! I'll try to get the file merged today and see how it works out. Please surface any issues, such as with auto-assignment, here or in JIRA. On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:12 AM Etienne Chauchot wrote: > Hi, > > I added myself as a reviewer for some modules. > > Etienne > > Le lundi 09

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Hi, I added myself as a reviewer for some modules. Etienne Le lundi 09 juillet 2018 à 17:06 -0700, Udi Meiri a écrit : > Hi everyone, > I'm proposing to add auto-reviewer-assignment using Github's CODEOWNERS > mechanism. > Initial version is here: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5909/files >

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Robert, the docs say: "The people you choose as code owners must have write permissions for the repository," but I want to ignore that for now and see what happens. :) Also, I'm not sure how the auto-assignment works. Does it round-robin? Will

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

+1 I added my name and a few others names that frequently do reviews in some areas. On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 > > I added my name on some components ;) > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > > On 10/07/2018 02:06, Udi Meiri wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'm

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

+1! On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:51 AM Robert Burke wrote: > +1 > If non-committers are welcome in the file, I'm happy to assist Henning > with Go SDK reviews.(@lostluck) > > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 8:47 AM Alexey Romanenko > wrote: > >> +1, >> Udi, thank you for taking care of this! >> I added

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

+1 If non-committers are welcome in the file, I'm happy to assist Henning with Go SDK reviews.(@lostluck) On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 8:47 AM Alexey Romanenko wrote: > +1, > Udi, thank you for taking care of this! > I added myself as a reviewer of some IO components. > > > On 10 Jul 2018, at 17:00,

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

+1, Udi, thank you for taking care of this! I added myself as a reviewer of some IO components. > On 10 Jul 2018, at 17:00, Henning Rohde wrote: > > +1. Sounds like a useful improvement. > > Udi -- do the reviewers in this file need to be committers for the PR > auto-assignment to work? >

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

+1. Sounds like a useful improvement. Udi -- do the reviewers in this file need to be committers for the PR auto-assignment to work? On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:59 AM Łukasz Gajowy wrote: > +1. It will certainly be useful. I added myself (and a fellow contributor) > to some components (IO

Re: CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

+1. It will certainly be useful. I added myself (and a fellow contributor) to some components (IO testing related mostly). Thanks, Łukasz wt., 10 lip 2018 o 02:06 Udi Meiri napisał(a): > Hi everyone, > > I'm proposing to add auto-reviewer-assignment using Github's CODEOWNERS > mechanism. >

CODEOWNERS for apache/beam repo

Hi everyone, I'm proposing to add auto-reviewer-assignment using Github's CODEOWNERS mechanism. Initial version is here: *https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5909/files * I need help from the community in determining owners for each component. Feel