Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Andrew Pilloud]

Auto-assigning PRs to committers seems like something that would be really
helpful. There was no shortage of volunteers to help review SQL while Kenn
is out. It seems like it would be pretty easy to build a review assignment
bot and have a list of committers willing to volunteer check in somewhere.
(Kubernetes has this, we might be able to use their bot.)

Andrew

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:28 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> The main limitation is that only members of the "apache" GitHub
> organization can be assigned to these fields. Otherwise they would be
> perfect for tracking both who is doing the review and whose turn it is to
> take action!
>
> I don't know how Github CODEOWNERS behaves if you put a non-member in it.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:23 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin 
> wrote:
>
>> That's a good document.
>>
>> I have a general question:
>> Is there a reason why we do not assign reviewer/assignee/labels to PRs? I
>> see that we add @reviewer comments, but never actually assign reviewers.
>> Those are good tools that Github can use as filters for you.
>>
>> --Mikhail
>>
>> Have feedback ?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:46 PM Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Huygaa. This document looks good to me. I think auto-assigning
>>> PRs could significantly help especially with first time contributors. It
>>> could also give us a chance to distribute reviews in a more balanced way
>>> across committers.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Alexey Romanenko <
>>> aromanenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Strongly agree with auto assigning code reviewers, I guess this is one
 of the main issue for first-starters to whom address their PR.

 Also, I’m totally pro for having review style guide which definitively
 should help to unify review process and make it more transparent for all.

 Thanks to last efforts to reduce a number of open PRs, there are only
 about 90 opened ones. I believe that most of them are “in progress” but
 others are quite inactive. Perhaps, it would make sense to put some efforts
 to review their status before they will be closed automatically by stale
 bot.

 Alexey


 On 28 Jun 2018, at 10:24, Etienne Chauchot 
 wrote:

 Hi,

 Thanks for that ! I left comments in the doc, mostly agreements and
 also a comment about public communication.

 Etienne

 Le mercredi 27 juin 2018 à 15:29 -0700, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :

 Thanks for writing this up! I especially like the idea of

 automatically assigning code reviewers, e.g. via

 https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/

 On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:10 AM Scott Wegner  wrote:


 Thanks for putting together this proposal Huygaa. Overall looks good to 
 me; I added some comments in the doc.


 On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:44 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:


 Does Kubernetes keep up with their backlog? We were hovering around 100 
 before our recent addition of committers & stalebot, and now around 80. I 
 can imagine their 1000 open PRs might be an OK steady state; they have 
 some 6 month and 2 month PRs but the overall distribution might be sort of 
 like ours. Is the data in a table somewhere? Couple other reference 
 points: Spark has ~500, Flink ~400, Storm ~150, Rust ~150.


 Kenn



 On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM Rafael Fernandez  
 wrote:


 I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some 
 feedback and thoughts:


 For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out there we 
 can learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a very healthy practice, it'd be 
 ideal to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas can connect you (and people 
 working on this).

 I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the various 
 areas - presumably Java, Python, Go, etc. have their own. The reason I 
 like it is because reviews become easier -- the reviewer will have an 
 easier time working with the contributor to make sure together they can 
 introduce great code that is consistent with the codebase (so they can 
 focus on functionality and scale discussions, not style, which is 
 published).

 I think setting review expectations is hard. Many of us in the community 
 have various degrees of time devoted to development - some of us are paid 
 to work on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting their time 
 and talent. I find inspiration in the Apache Code of Conduct [1] to 
 instead empower people to communicate clearly. A company or a developer 
 may choose to say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in 
 to email reminders and such. And when something is time sensitive, we 
 should trust reviewers to be 

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Kenneth Knowles]

The main limitation is that only members of the "apache" GitHub
organization can be assigned to these fields. Otherwise they would be
perfect for tracking both who is doing the review and whose turn it is to
take action!

I don't know how Github CODEOWNERS behaves if you put a non-member in it.

Kenn

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:23 PM Mikhail Gryzykhin  wrote:

> That's a good document.
>
> I have a general question:
> Is there a reason why we do not assign reviewer/assignee/labels to PRs? I
> see that we add @reviewer comments, but never actually assign reviewers.
> Those are good tools that Github can use as filters for you.
>
> --Mikhail
>
> Have feedback ?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:46 PM Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>
>> Thank you Huygaa. This document looks good to me. I think auto-assigning
>> PRs could significantly help especially with first time contributors. It
>> could also give us a chance to distribute reviews in a more balanced way
>> across committers.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Alexey Romanenko <
>> aromanenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Strongly agree with auto assigning code reviewers, I guess this is one
>>> of the main issue for first-starters to whom address their PR.
>>>
>>> Also, I’m totally pro for having review style guide which definitively
>>> should help to unify review process and make it more transparent for all.
>>>
>>> Thanks to last efforts to reduce a number of open PRs, there are only
>>> about 90 opened ones. I believe that most of them are “in progress” but
>>> others are quite inactive. Perhaps, it would make sense to put some efforts
>>> to review their status before they will be closed automatically by stale
>>> bot.
>>>
>>> Alexey
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Jun 2018, at 10:24, Etienne Chauchot  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for that ! I left comments in the doc, mostly agreements and also
>>> a comment about public communication.
>>>
>>> Etienne
>>>
>>> Le mercredi 27 juin 2018 à 15:29 -0700, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
>>>
>>> Thanks for writing this up! I especially like the idea of
>>>
>>> automatically assigning code reviewers, e.g. via
>>>
>>> https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:10 AM Scott Wegner  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for putting together this proposal Huygaa. Overall looks good to me; 
>>> I added some comments in the doc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:44 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Does Kubernetes keep up with their backlog? We were hovering around 100 
>>> before our recent addition of committers & stalebot, and now around 80. I 
>>> can imagine their 1000 open PRs might be an OK steady state; they have some 
>>> 6 month and 2 month PRs but the overall distribution might be sort of like 
>>> ours. Is the data in a table somewhere? Couple other reference points: 
>>> Spark has ~500, Flink ~400, Storm ~150, Rust ~150.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM Rafael Fernandez  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some 
>>> feedback and thoughts:
>>>
>>>
>>> For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out there we 
>>> can learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a very healthy practice, it'd be 
>>> ideal to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas can connect you (and people 
>>> working on this).
>>>
>>> I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the various 
>>> areas - presumably Java, Python, Go, etc. have their own. The reason I like 
>>> it is because reviews become easier -- the reviewer will have an easier 
>>> time working with the contributor to make sure together they can introduce 
>>> great code that is consistent with the codebase (so they can focus on 
>>> functionality and scale discussions, not style, which is published).
>>>
>>> I think setting review expectations is hard. Many of us in the community 
>>> have various degrees of time devoted to development - some of us are paid 
>>> to work on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting their time 
>>> and talent. I find inspiration in the Apache Code of Conduct [1] to instead 
>>> empower people to communicate clearly. A company or a developer may choose 
>>> to say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in to email 
>>> reminders and such. And when something is time sensitive, we should trust 
>>> reviewers to be Apache-y and do a micro version of "Step down consderately" 
>>> -- "I can't commit to reviewing this by Friday, I suggest another person.", 
>>> for example.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think at the end of the day we all need to eliminate guesswork and 
>>> promote the healthiest communication we can so we can all continue to grow 
>>> the project as fast as we want.
>>>
>>>
>>> r
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Reuven, that's great. In this 

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Mikhail Gryzykhin]

That's a good document.

I have a general question:
Is there a reason why we do not assign reviewer/assignee/labels to PRs? I
see that we add @reviewer comments, but never actually assign reviewers.
Those are good tools that Github can use as filters for you.

--Mikhail

Have feedback ?


On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:46 PM Ahmet Altay  wrote:

> Thank you Huygaa. This document looks good to me. I think auto-assigning
> PRs could significantly help especially with first time contributors. It
> could also give us a chance to distribute reviews in a more balanced way
> across committers.
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Alexey Romanenko <
> aromanenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Strongly agree with auto assigning code reviewers, I guess this is one of
>> the main issue for first-starters to whom address their PR.
>>
>> Also, I’m totally pro for having review style guide which definitively
>> should help to unify review process and make it more transparent for all.
>>
>> Thanks to last efforts to reduce a number of open PRs, there are only
>> about 90 opened ones. I believe that most of them are “in progress” but
>> others are quite inactive. Perhaps, it would make sense to put some efforts
>> to review their status before they will be closed automatically by stale
>> bot.
>>
>> Alexey
>>
>>
>> On 28 Jun 2018, at 10:24, Etienne Chauchot  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for that ! I left comments in the doc, mostly agreements and also
>> a comment about public communication.
>>
>> Etienne
>>
>> Le mercredi 27 juin 2018 à 15:29 -0700, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
>>
>> Thanks for writing this up! I especially like the idea of
>>
>> automatically assigning code reviewers, e.g. via
>>
>> https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:10 AM Scott Wegner  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for putting together this proposal Huygaa. Overall looks good to me; 
>> I added some comments in the doc.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:44 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Does Kubernetes keep up with their backlog? We were hovering around 100 
>> before our recent addition of committers & stalebot, and now around 80. I 
>> can imagine their 1000 open PRs might be an OK steady state; they have some 
>> 6 month and 2 month PRs but the overall distribution might be sort of like 
>> ours. Is the data in a table somewhere? Couple other reference points: Spark 
>> has ~500, Flink ~400, Storm ~150, Rust ~150.
>>
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM Rafael Fernandez  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some 
>> feedback and thoughts:
>>
>>
>> For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out there we 
>> can learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a very healthy practice, it'd be 
>> ideal to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas can connect you (and people 
>> working on this).
>>
>> I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the various 
>> areas - presumably Java, Python, Go, etc. have their own. The reason I like 
>> it is because reviews become easier -- the reviewer will have an easier time 
>> working with the contributor to make sure together they can introduce great 
>> code that is consistent with the codebase (so they can focus on 
>> functionality and scale discussions, not style, which is published).
>>
>> I think setting review expectations is hard. Many of us in the community 
>> have various degrees of time devoted to development - some of us are paid to 
>> work on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting their time and 
>> talent. I find inspiration in the Apache Code of Conduct [1] to instead 
>> empower people to communicate clearly. A company or a developer may choose 
>> to say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in to email 
>> reminders and such. And when something is time sensitive, we should trust 
>> reviewers to be Apache-y and do a micro version of "Step down consderately" 
>> -- "I can't commit to reviewing this by Friday, I suggest another person.", 
>> for example.
>>
>>
>> I think at the end of the day we all need to eliminate guesswork and promote 
>> the healthiest communication we can so we can all continue to grow the 
>> project as fast as we want.
>>
>>
>> r
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Reuven, that's great. In this thread, we can continue discussing the usage 
>> of review tools, dashboards, and metrics.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>>
>>
>> So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc, and 
>> in fact I was coincidentally just now drafting up a proposal doc. I'll share 
>> my proposal doc with the dev list soon.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review 

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Ahmet Altay]

Thank you Huygaa. This document looks good to me. I think auto-assigning
PRs could significantly help especially with first time contributors. It
could also give us a chance to distribute reviews in a more balanced way
across committers.

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Alexey Romanenko 
wrote:

> Strongly agree with auto assigning code reviewers, I guess this is one of
> the main issue for first-starters to whom address their PR.
>
> Also, I’m totally pro for having review style guide which definitively
> should help to unify review process and make it more transparent for all.
>
> Thanks to last efforts to reduce a number of open PRs, there are only
> about 90 opened ones. I believe that most of them are “in progress” but
> others are quite inactive. Perhaps, it would make sense to put some efforts
> to review their status before they will be closed automatically by stale
> bot.
>
> Alexey
>
>
> On 28 Jun 2018, at 10:24, Etienne Chauchot  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for that ! I left comments in the doc, mostly agreements and also a
> comment about public communication.
>
> Etienne
>
> Le mercredi 27 juin 2018 à 15:29 -0700, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
>
> Thanks for writing this up! I especially like the idea of
>
> automatically assigning code reviewers, e.g. via
>
> https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:10 AM Scott Wegner  wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for putting together this proposal Huygaa. Overall looks good to me; I 
> added some comments in the doc.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:44 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
>
> Does Kubernetes keep up with their backlog? We were hovering around 100 
> before our recent addition of committers & stalebot, and now around 80. I can 
> imagine their 1000 open PRs might be an OK steady state; they have some 6 
> month and 2 month PRs but the overall distribution might be sort of like 
> ours. Is the data in a table somewhere? Couple other reference points: Spark 
> has ~500, Flink ~400, Storm ~150, Rust ~150.
>
>
> Kenn
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM Rafael Fernandez  wrote:
>
>
> I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some 
> feedback and thoughts:
>
>
> For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out there we can 
> learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a very healthy practice, it'd be ideal 
> to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas can connect you (and people working on 
> this).
>
> I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the various 
> areas - presumably Java, Python, Go, etc. have their own. The reason I like 
> it is because reviews become easier -- the reviewer will have an easier time 
> working with the contributor to make sure together they can introduce great 
> code that is consistent with the codebase (so they can focus on functionality 
> and scale discussions, not style, which is published).
>
> I think setting review expectations is hard. Many of us in the community have 
> various degrees of time devoted to development - some of us are paid to work 
> on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting their time and 
> talent. I find inspiration in the Apache Code of Conduct [1] to instead 
> empower people to communicate clearly. A company or a developer may choose to 
> say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in to email reminders 
> and such. And when something is time sensitive, we should trust reviewers to 
> be Apache-y and do a micro version of "Step down consderately" -- "I can't 
> commit to reviewing this by Friday, I suggest another person.", for example.
>
>
> I think at the end of the day we all need to eliminate guesswork and promote 
> the healthiest communication we can so we can all continue to grow the 
> project as fast as we want.
>
>
> r
>
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:
>
>
> Reuven, that's great. In this thread, we can continue discussing the usage of 
> review tools, dashboards, and metrics.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>
>
> So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc, and 
> in fact I was coincidentally just now drafting up a proposal doc. I'll share 
> my proposal doc with the dev list soon.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:
>
>
> Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process based 
> on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like to propose 
> improvement ideas. Please take a look at: 
> https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review.
>
>
> Main proposals suggested in the doc are:
>
>
> Create a code review guideline document.
>
> Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam.
>
> Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health.
>
>
> Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of 
> suggestions including existing code review guidelines, 

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Alexey Romanenko]

Strongly agree with auto assigning code reviewers, I guess this is one of the 
main issue for first-starters to whom address their PR.

Also, I’m totally pro for having review style guide which definitively should 
help to unify review process and make it more transparent for all.

Thanks to last efforts to reduce a number of open PRs, there are only about 90 
opened ones. I believe that most of them are “in progress” but others are quite 
inactive. Perhaps, it would make sense to put some efforts to review their 
status before they will be closed automatically by stale bot.

Alexey

> On 28 Jun 2018, at 10:24, Etienne Chauchot  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for that ! I left comments in the doc, mostly agreements and also a 
> comment about public communication.
> 
> Etienne
> 
> Le mercredi 27 juin 2018 à 15:29 -0700, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
>> Thanks for writing this up! I especially like the idea of
>> automatically assigning code reviewers, e.g. via
>> https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/ 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:10 AM Scott Wegner > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for putting together this proposal Huygaa. Overall looks good to me; 
>> I added some comments in the doc.
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:44 PM Kenneth Knowles > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Does Kubernetes keep up with their backlog? We were hovering around 100 
>> before our recent addition of committers & stalebot, and now around 80. I 
>> can imagine their 1000 open PRs might be an OK steady state; they have some 
>> 6 month and 2 month PRs but the overall distribution might be sort of like 
>> ours. Is the data in a table somewhere? Couple other reference points: Spark 
>> has ~500, Flink ~400, Storm ~150, Rust ~150.
>> 
>> Kenn
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM Rafael Fernandez > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some 
>> feedback and thoughts:
>> 
>> For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out there we 
>> can learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a very healthy practice, it'd be 
>> ideal to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas can connect you (and people 
>> working on this).
>> I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the various 
>> areas - presumably Java, Python, Go, etc. have their own. The reason I like 
>> it is because reviews become easier -- the reviewer will have an easier time 
>> working with the contributor to make sure together they can introduce great 
>> code that is consistent with the codebase (so they can focus on 
>> functionality and scale discussions, not style, which is published).
>> I think setting review expectations is hard. Many of us in the community 
>> have various degrees of time devoted to development - some of us are paid to 
>> work on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting their time and 
>> talent. I find inspiration in the Apache Code of Conduct [1] to instead 
>> empower people to communicate clearly. A company or a developer may choose 
>> to say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in to email 
>> reminders and such. And when something is time sensitive, we should trust 
>> reviewers to be Apache-y and do a micro version of "Step down consderately" 
>> -- "I can't commit to reviewing this by Friday, I suggest another person.", 
>> for example.
>> 
>> I think at the end of the day we all need to eliminate guesswork and promote 
>> the healthiest communication we can so we can all continue to grow the 
>> project as fast as we want.
>> 
>> r
>> 
>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Reuven, that's great. In this thread, we can continue discussing the usage 
>> of review tools, dashboards, and metrics.
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reuven Lax > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc, and 
>> in fact I was coincidentally just now drafting up a proposal doc. I'll share 
>> my proposal doc with the dev list soon.
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process based 
>> on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like to propose 
>> improvement ideas. Please take a look at: 
>> https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review 
>> .
>> 
>> Main proposals suggested in the doc are:
>> 
>> Create a code review guideline document.
>> Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam.
>> Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health.
>> 
>> Feel free to add comments in the doc. I 

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Etienne Chauchot]

Hi, 
Thanks for that ! I left comments in the doc, mostly agreements and also a 
comment about public communication.
Etienne
Le mercredi 27 juin 2018 à 15:29 -0700, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
> Thanks for writing this up! I especially like the idea ofautomatically 
> assigning code reviewers, e.g. viahttps://help.
> github.com/articles/about-codeowners/On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:10 AM Scott 
> Wegner  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for putting together this proposal Huygaa. Overall looks good to me; I 
> added some comments in the doc.
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:44 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
> 
> Does Kubernetes keep up with their backlog? We were hovering around 100 
> before our recent addition of committers &
> stalebot, and now around 80. I can imagine their 1000 open PRs might be an OK 
> steady state; they have some 6 month and
> 2 month PRs but the overall distribution might be sort of like ours. Is the 
> data in a table somewhere? Couple other
> reference points: Spark has ~500, Flink ~400, Storm ~150, Rust ~150.
> Kenn
> 
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM Rafael Fernandez  wrote:
> 
> I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some 
> feedback and thoughts:
> For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out there we can 
> learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a
> very healthy practice, it'd be ideal to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas can 
> connect you (and people working on
> this).I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the 
> various areas - presumably Java, Python, Go,
> etc. have their own. The reason I like it is because reviews become easier -- 
> the reviewer will have an easier time
> working with the contributor to make sure together they can introduce great 
> code that is consistent with the codebase
> (so they can focus on functionality and scale discussions, not style, which 
> is published).I think setting review
> expectations is hard. Many of us in the community have various degrees of 
> time devoted to development - some of us are
> paid to work on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting their 
> time and talent. I find inspiration in the
> Apache Code of Conduct [1] to instead empower people to communicate clearly. 
> A company or a developer may choose to
> say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in to email reminders 
> and such. And when something is time
> sensitive, we should trust reviewers to be Apache-y and do a micro version of 
> "Step down consderately" -- "I can't
> commit to reviewing this by Friday, I suggest another person.", for example.
> I think at the end of the day we all need to eliminate guesswork and promote 
> the healthiest communication we can so we
> can all continue to grow the project as fast as we want.
> r
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:
> 
> Reuven, that's great. In this thread, we can continue discussing the usage of 
> review tools, dashboards, and metrics.
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
> 
> So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc, and 
> in fact I was coincidentally just now
> drafting up a proposal doc. I'll share my proposal doc with the dev list soon.
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:
> 
> Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process based 
> on previous discussions on dev list and
> summits, and I would like to propose improvement ideas. Please take a look 
> at: https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review.
> Main proposals suggested in the doc are:
> Create a code review guideline document.Build/setup code review tools and 
> dashboards for Beam.Collect metrics to
> monitor Beam's code review health.
> Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of 
> suggestions including existing code review
> guidelines, potential code review tools etc.
> Thanks so much,Huygaa

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Robert Bradshaw]

Thanks for writing this up! I especially like the idea of
automatically assigning code reviewers, e.g. via
https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:10 AM Scott Wegner  wrote:
>
> Thanks for putting together this proposal Huygaa. Overall looks good to me; I 
> added some comments in the doc.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:44 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>> Does Kubernetes keep up with their backlog? We were hovering around 100 
>> before our recent addition of committers & stalebot, and now around 80. I 
>> can imagine their 1000 open PRs might be an OK steady state; they have some 
>> 6 month and 2 month PRs but the overall distribution might be sort of like 
>> ours. Is the data in a table somewhere? Couple other reference points: Spark 
>> has ~500, Flink ~400, Storm ~150, Rust ~150.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM Rafael Fernandez  wrote:
>>>
>>> I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some 
>>> feedback and thoughts:
>>>
>>> For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out there we 
>>> can learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a very healthy practice, it'd be 
>>> ideal to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas can connect you (and people 
>>> working on this).
>>> I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the various 
>>> areas - presumably Java, Python, Go, etc. have their own. The reason I like 
>>> it is because reviews become easier -- the reviewer will have an easier 
>>> time working with the contributor to make sure together they can introduce 
>>> great code that is consistent with the codebase (so they can focus on 
>>> functionality and scale discussions, not style, which is published).
>>> I think setting review expectations is hard. Many of us in the community 
>>> have various degrees of time devoted to development - some of us are paid 
>>> to work on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting their time 
>>> and talent. I find inspiration in the Apache Code of Conduct [1] to instead 
>>> empower people to communicate clearly. A company or a developer may choose 
>>> to say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in to email 
>>> reminders and such. And when something is time sensitive, we should trust 
>>> reviewers to be Apache-y and do a micro version of "Step down consderately" 
>>> -- "I can't commit to reviewing this by Friday, I suggest another person.", 
>>> for example.
>>>
>>> I think at the end of the day we all need to eliminate guesswork and 
>>> promote the healthiest communication we can so we can all continue to grow 
>>> the project as fast as we want.
>>>
>>> r
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:

 Reuven, that's great. In this thread, we can continue discussing the usage 
 of review tools, dashboards, and metrics.

 On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>
> So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc, 
> and in fact I was coincidentally just now drafting up a proposal doc. 
> I'll share my proposal doc with the dev list soon.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process 
>> based on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like 
>> to propose improvement ideas. Please take a look at: 
>> https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review.
>>
>> Main proposals suggested in the doc are:
>>
>> Create a code review guideline document.
>> Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam.
>> Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health.
>>
>> Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of 
>> suggestions including existing code review guidelines, potential code 
>> review tools etc.
>>
>> Thanks so much,
>> Huygaa

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Kenneth Knowles]

Does Kubernetes keep up with their backlog? We were hovering around 100
before our recent addition of committers & stalebot, and now around 80. I
can imagine their 1000 open PRs might be an OK steady state; they have some
6 month and 2 month PRs but the overall distribution might be sort of like
ours. Is the data in a table somewhere? Couple other reference points:
Spark has ~500, Flink ~400, Storm ~150, Rust ~150.

Kenn


On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM Rafael Fernandez 
wrote:

> I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some
> feedback and thoughts:
>
>- For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out
>there we can learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a very healthy practice,
>it'd be ideal to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas  can
>connect you (and people working on this).
>- I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the
>various areas - presumably Java, Python, Go, etc. have their own. The
>reason I like it is because reviews become easier -- the reviewer will have
>an easier time working with the contributor to make sure together they can
>introduce great code that is consistent with the codebase (so they can
>focus on functionality and scale discussions, not style, which is
>published).
>- I think setting review expectations is hard. Many of us in the
>community have various degrees of time devoted to development - some of us
>are paid to work on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting
>their time and talent. I find inspiration in the Apache Code of Conduct [1]
>to instead empower people to communicate clearly. A company or a developer
>may choose to say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in to
>email reminders and such. And when something is time sensitive, we should
>trust reviewers to be Apache-y and do a micro version of "*Step down
>consderately*" -- "I can't commit to reviewing this by Friday, I
>suggest another person.", for example.
>
> I think at the end of the day we all need to eliminate guesswork and
> promote the healthiest communication we can so we can all continue to grow
> the project as fast as we want.
>
> r
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan 
> wrote:
>
>> Reuven, that's great. In this thread, we can continue discussing the
>> usage of review tools, dashboards, and metrics.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>>
>>> So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc,
>>> and in fact I was coincidentally just now drafting up a proposal doc. I'll
>>> share my proposal doc with the dev list soon.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process
 based on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like to
 propose improvement ideas. Please take a look at:
 https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review.

 Main proposals suggested in the doc are:

1. Create a code review guideline document.
2. Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam.
3. Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health.

 Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of
 suggestions including existing code review guidelines, potential code
 review tools etc.

 Thanks so much,
 Huygaa

>>>

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Rafael Fernandez]

I did a quick pass on the doc and left minor comments, thanks! I have some
feedback and thoughts:

   - For metrics and tools, there ought to be mature OSS projects out there
   we can learn from. I believe Kubernetes has a very healthy practice, it'd
   be ideal to learn from them. +Griselda Cuevas  can
   connect you (and people working on this).
   - I really like the idea of a style guide (which can evolve) for the
   various areas - presumably Java, Python, Go, etc. have their own. The
   reason I like it is because reviews become easier -- the reviewer will have
   an easier time working with the contributor to make sure together they can
   introduce great code that is consistent with the codebase (so they can
   focus on functionality and scale discussions, not style, which is
   published).
   - I think setting review expectations is hard. Many of us in the
   community have various degrees of time devoted to development - some of us
   are paid to work on Beam full time, others part time, others are gifting
   their time and talent. I find inspiration in the Apache Code of Conduct [1]
   to instead empower people to communicate clearly. A company or a developer
   may choose to say "This is what you can expect from me", and say, opt-in to
   email reminders and such. And when something is time sensitive, we should
   trust reviewers to be Apache-y and do a micro version of "*Step down
   consderately*" -- "I can't commit to reviewing this by Friday, I suggest
   another person.", for example.

I think at the end of the day we all need to eliminate guesswork and
promote the healthiest communication we can so we can all continue to grow
the project as fast as we want.

r

[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:48 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:

> Reuven, that's great. In this thread, we can continue discussing the usage
> of review tools, dashboards, and metrics.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>
>> So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc,
>> and in fact I was coincidentally just now drafting up a proposal doc. I'll
>> share my proposal doc with the dev list soon.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process
>>> based on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like to
>>> propose improvement ideas. Please take a look at:
>>> https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review.
>>>
>>> Main proposals suggested in the doc are:
>>>
>>>1. Create a code review guideline document.
>>>2. Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam.
>>>3. Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health.
>>>
>>> Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of
>>> suggestions including existing code review guidelines, potential code
>>> review tools etc.
>>>
>>> Thanks so much,
>>> Huygaa
>>>
>>


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Huygaa Batsaikhan]

Reuven, that's great. In this thread, we can continue discussing the usage
of review tools, dashboards, and metrics.

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:

> So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc,
> and in fact I was coincidentally just now drafting up a proposal doc. I'll
> share my proposal doc with the dev list soon.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process
>> based on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like to
>> propose improvement ideas. Please take a look at:
>> https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review.
>>
>> Main proposals suggested in the doc are:
>>
>>1. Create a code review guideline document.
>>2. Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam.
>>3. Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health.
>>
>> Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of
>> suggestions including existing code review guidelines, potential code
>> review tools etc.
>>
>> Thanks so much,
>> Huygaa
>>
>

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Reuven Lax]

So I suggested a while ago that we create a code-review guidelines doc, and
in fact I was coincidentally just now drafting up a proposal doc. I'll
share my proposal doc with the dev list soon.

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan  wrote:

> Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process
> based on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like to
> propose improvement ideas. Please take a look at:
> https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review.
>
> Main proposals suggested in the doc are:
>
>1. Create a code review guideline document.
>2. Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam.
>3. Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health.
>
> Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of
> suggestions including existing code review guidelines, potential code
> review tools etc.
>
> Thanks so much,
> Huygaa
>

Re: [Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Gonna take a look.

Thanks !!

Regards
JB

Le 27 juin 2018 à 08:18, à 08:18, Huygaa Batsaikhan  a écrit:
>Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process
>based
>on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like to
>propose improvement ideas. Please take a look at:
>https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review.
>
>Main proposals suggested in the doc are:
>
>   1. Create a code review guideline document.
>   2. Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam.
>   3. Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health.
>
>Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of
>suggestions including existing code review guidelines, potential code
>review tools etc.
>
>Thanks so much,
>Huygaa

[Design Proposal] Improving Beam code review

[Huygaa Batsaikhan]

Hi, I've been looking into ways to improve Beam's code review process based
on previous discussions on dev list and summits, and I would like to
propose improvement ideas. Please take a look at:
https://s.apache.org/beam-code-review.

Main proposals suggested in the doc are:

   1. Create a code review guideline document.
   2. Build/setup code review tools and dashboards for Beam.
   3. Collect metrics to monitor Beam's code review health.

Feel free to add comments in the doc. I am looking for all sorts of
suggestions including existing code review guidelines, potential code
review tools etc.

Thanks so much,
Huygaa