You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aurora.apache.org by Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> on 2015/02/23 20:53:05 UTC
Shepherding new contributions
Hey,
With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to receive
more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not populate the
"People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person to
ensure we accept or reject contributions.
I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for dealing with
reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility could be
limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
What do people think about this idea?
--
Zameer Manji
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Hmm, if the Mesos PMCs understand how ASF work they will be very
careful implementing it b4 next board report.
- Henry
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com> wrote:
> They haven't actually implemented it yet. Here's the discussion thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/mesos-dev/201502.mbox/%3CCA%2B8RcoReugMVqoOpsnB8WGYBELa5fHwPA%3DJ%3DYHJE22iwZvsbeQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> (note the last message in the thread asking how it interacts with the
> Apache by-laws ;)).
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Do you know how MAINTAINERS file work for Mesos?
>>
>> Does it list different committers for each areas of Mesos?
>>
>> - Henry
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>
>> wrote:
>> > We had to revert this change as it was causing rbt to set the
>> TARGET_PEOPLE
>> > as the reviewers on update. We could probably hack our local rbt script
>> to
>> > add a --target-people option for new reviews (no -r flag passed?) if we
>> > wanted to go that route. Alternately we could follow in the footsteps of
>> > Mesos and add MAINTAINERS files (and have our rbt script add people based
>> > on that).
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have set Joshua and Bill to be the defaults for now:
>> >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/31496/
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Henry Saputra <
>> henry.saputra@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This would work.
>> >> > Anyone assigned as reviewer in the RB need to either execute the
>> >> > review or excuse themselves to make sure all "ship it" votes are
>> >> > accounted for.
>> >> >
>> >> > - Henry
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cohen <
>> jcohen@twopensource.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > I'm ok with that, as I think it's a better experience for new
>> >> > contributors
>> >> > > than the current situation. However, my understanding is that we
>> >> > generally
>> >> > > have a policy that you need a ship it from everyone on the People
>> line
>> >> > of a
>> >> > > review. If that's the case than the default people need to be
>> cognizant
>> >> > of
>> >> > > their default status and be sure to remove themselves when
>> appropriate
>> >> > > reviewers have been assigned.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Looking at the reviewboard documentation
>> >> > >> <
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> it
>> >> > >> seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to
>> ensure
>> >> the
>> >> > >> people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating
>> it
>> >> > >> initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a
>> >> good
>> >> > >> next step.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review
>> the
>> >> > >> patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth
>> and
>> >> > >> expertise to review it for quality.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Does anyone else volunteer?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> > Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for
>> >> other
>> >> > >> > unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in
>> >> > mind.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <
>> >> henry.saputra@gmail.com>
>> >> > >> > wrote:
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > > Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or
>> >> shepherds
>> >> > >> > > business.
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing
>> >> this
>> >> > >> > > concept.
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights
>> >> and
>> >> > >> > > responsibilities.
>> >> > >> > > Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular
>> parts
>> >> > that
>> >> > >> > > could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits
>> from
>> >> one
>> >> > >> > > to another PMCs/ committers.
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
>> >> > >> > > "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
>> >> > >> > > contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > - Henry
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <
>> >> > >> jcohen@twopensource.com
>> >> > >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >> > >> > > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files
>> >> across
>> >> > >> the
>> >> > >> > > code
>> >> > >> > > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm
>> not
>> >> > sure
>> >> > >> > > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either
>> >> > include
>> >> > >> > all
>> >> > >> > > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being
>> on
>> >> the
>> >> > >> hook
>> >> > >> > > for
>> >> > >> > > > all reviews from first time contributors.
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <
>> >> zmanji@apache.org
>> >> > >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > >> Hey,
>> >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > >> > > >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has
>> started
>> >> to
>> >> > >> > > receive
>> >> > >> > > >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not
>> >> > >> populate
>> >> > >> > > the
>> >> > >> > > >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible
>> >> > person
>> >> > >> to
>> >> > >> > > >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
>> >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > >> > > >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible
>> for
>> >> > >> dealing
>> >> > >> > > with
>> >> > >> > > >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The
>> >> responsibility
>> >> > >> > could
>> >> > >> > > be
>> >> > >> > > >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the
>> >> code.
>> >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > >> > > >> What do people think about this idea?
>> >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > >> > > >> --
>> >> > >> > > >> Zameer Manji
>> >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > --
>> >> > >> > -=Bill
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > --
>> >> > >> > Zameer Manji
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Zameer Manji
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>.
They haven't actually implemented it yet. Here's the discussion thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/mesos-dev/201502.mbox/%3CCA%2B8RcoReugMVqoOpsnB8WGYBELa5fHwPA%3DJ%3DYHJE22iwZvsbeQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
(note the last message in the thread asking how it interacts with the
Apache by-laws ;)).
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Do you know how MAINTAINERS file work for Mesos?
>
> Does it list different committers for each areas of Mesos?
>
> - Henry
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
> > We had to revert this change as it was causing rbt to set the
> TARGET_PEOPLE
> > as the reviewers on update. We could probably hack our local rbt script
> to
> > add a --target-people option for new reviews (no -r flag passed?) if we
> > wanted to go that route. Alternately we could follow in the footsteps of
> > Mesos and add MAINTAINERS files (and have our rbt script add people based
> > on that).
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I have set Joshua and Bill to be the defaults for now:
> >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/31496/
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Henry Saputra <
> henry.saputra@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This would work.
> >> > Anyone assigned as reviewer in the RB need to either execute the
> >> > review or excuse themselves to make sure all "ship it" votes are
> >> > accounted for.
> >> >
> >> > - Henry
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cohen <
> jcohen@twopensource.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > I'm ok with that, as I think it's a better experience for new
> >> > contributors
> >> > > than the current situation. However, my understanding is that we
> >> > generally
> >> > > have a policy that you need a ship it from everyone on the People
> line
> >> > of a
> >> > > review. If that's the case than the default people need to be
> cognizant
> >> > of
> >> > > their default status and be sure to remove themselves when
> appropriate
> >> > > reviewers have been assigned.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Looking at the reviewboard documentation
> >> > >> <
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> it
> >> > >> seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to
> ensure
> >> the
> >> > >> people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating
> it
> >> > >> initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a
> >> good
> >> > >> next step.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review
> the
> >> > >> patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth
> and
> >> > >> expertise to review it for quality.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Does anyone else volunteer?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for
> >> other
> >> > >> > unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in
> >> > mind.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <
> >> henry.saputra@gmail.com>
> >> > >> > wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or
> >> shepherds
> >> > >> > > business.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing
> >> this
> >> > >> > > concept.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights
> >> and
> >> > >> > > responsibilities.
> >> > >> > > Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular
> parts
> >> > that
> >> > >> > > could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits
> from
> >> one
> >> > >> > > to another PMCs/ committers.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
> >> > >> > > "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
> >> > >> > > contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > - Henry
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <
> >> > >> jcohen@twopensource.com
> >> > >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files
> >> across
> >> > >> the
> >> > >> > > code
> >> > >> > > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm
> not
> >> > sure
> >> > >> > > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either
> >> > include
> >> > >> > all
> >> > >> > > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being
> on
> >> the
> >> > >> hook
> >> > >> > > for
> >> > >> > > > all reviews from first time contributors.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <
> >> zmanji@apache.org
> >> > >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >> Hey,
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has
> started
> >> to
> >> > >> > > receive
> >> > >> > > >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not
> >> > >> populate
> >> > >> > > the
> >> > >> > > >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible
> >> > person
> >> > >> to
> >> > >> > > >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible
> for
> >> > >> dealing
> >> > >> > > with
> >> > >> > > >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The
> >> responsibility
> >> > >> > could
> >> > >> > > be
> >> > >> > > >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the
> >> code.
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> What do people think about this idea?
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> --
> >> > >> > > >> Zameer Manji
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > --
> >> > >> > -=Bill
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > --
> >> > >> > Zameer Manji
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Zameer Manji
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Do you know how MAINTAINERS file work for Mesos?
Does it list different committers for each areas of Mesos?
- Henry
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com> wrote:
> We had to revert this change as it was causing rbt to set the TARGET_PEOPLE
> as the reviewers on update. We could probably hack our local rbt script to
> add a --target-people option for new reviews (no -r flag passed?) if we
> wanted to go that route. Alternately we could follow in the footsteps of
> Mesos and add MAINTAINERS files (and have our rbt script add people based
> on that).
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I have set Joshua and Bill to be the defaults for now:
>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/31496/
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This would work.
>> > Anyone assigned as reviewer in the RB need to either execute the
>> > review or excuse themselves to make sure all "ship it" votes are
>> > accounted for.
>> >
>> > - Henry
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > I'm ok with that, as I think it's a better experience for new
>> > contributors
>> > > than the current situation. However, my understanding is that we
>> > generally
>> > > have a policy that you need a ship it from everyone on the People line
>> > of a
>> > > review. If that's the case than the default people need to be cognizant
>> > of
>> > > their default status and be sure to remove themselves when appropriate
>> > > reviewers have been assigned.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Looking at the reviewboard documentation
>> > >> <
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options
>> > >> >
>> > >> it
>> > >> seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to ensure
>> the
>> > >> people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating it
>> > >> initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a
>> good
>> > >> next step.
>> > >>
>> > >> I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review the
>> > >> patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth and
>> > >> expertise to review it for quality.
>> > >>
>> > >> Does anyone else volunteer?
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for
>> other
>> > >> > unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in
>> > mind.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <
>> henry.saputra@gmail.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or
>> shepherds
>> > >> > > business.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing
>> this
>> > >> > > concept.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights
>> and
>> > >> > > responsibilities.
>> > >> > > Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts
>> > that
>> > >> > > could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from
>> one
>> > >> > > to another PMCs/ committers.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
>> > >> > > "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
>> > >> > > contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > - Henry
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <
>> > >> jcohen@twopensource.com
>> > >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >> > > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files
>> across
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > code
>> > >> > > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not
>> > sure
>> > >> > > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either
>> > include
>> > >> > all
>> > >> > > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on
>> the
>> > >> hook
>> > >> > > for
>> > >> > > > all reviews from first time contributors.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <
>> zmanji@apache.org
>> > >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> Hey,
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started
>> to
>> > >> > > receive
>> > >> > > >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not
>> > >> populate
>> > >> > > the
>> > >> > > >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible
>> > person
>> > >> to
>> > >> > > >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for
>> > >> dealing
>> > >> > > with
>> > >> > > >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The
>> responsibility
>> > >> > could
>> > >> > > be
>> > >> > > >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the
>> code.
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> What do people think about this idea?
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> --
>> > >> > > >> Zameer Manji
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > -=Bill
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Zameer Manji
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Zameer Manji
>> >
>> >
>>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>.
We had to revert this change as it was causing rbt to set the TARGET_PEOPLE
as the reviewers on update. We could probably hack our local rbt script to
add a --target-people option for new reviews (no -r flag passed?) if we
wanted to go that route. Alternately we could follow in the footsteps of
Mesos and add MAINTAINERS files (and have our rbt script add people based
on that).
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> wrote:
> I have set Joshua and Bill to be the defaults for now:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/31496/
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This would work.
> > Anyone assigned as reviewer in the RB need to either execute the
> > review or excuse themselves to make sure all "ship it" votes are
> > accounted for.
> >
> > - Henry
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I'm ok with that, as I think it's a better experience for new
> > contributors
> > > than the current situation. However, my understanding is that we
> > generally
> > > have a policy that you need a ship it from everyone on the People line
> > of a
> > > review. If that's the case than the default people need to be cognizant
> > of
> > > their default status and be sure to remove themselves when appropriate
> > > reviewers have been assigned.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Looking at the reviewboard documentation
> > >> <
> > >>
> >
> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options
> > >> >
> > >> it
> > >> seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to ensure
> the
> > >> people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating it
> > >> initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a
> good
> > >> next step.
> > >>
> > >> I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review the
> > >> patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth and
> > >> expertise to review it for quality.
> > >>
> > >> Does anyone else volunteer?
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for
> other
> > >> > unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in
> > mind.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <
> henry.saputra@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or
> shepherds
> > >> > > business.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing
> this
> > >> > > concept.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights
> and
> > >> > > responsibilities.
> > >> > > Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts
> > that
> > >> > > could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from
> one
> > >> > > to another PMCs/ committers.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
> > >> > > "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
> > >> > > contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Henry
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <
> > >> jcohen@twopensource.com
> > >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files
> across
> > >> the
> > >> > > code
> > >> > > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not
> > sure
> > >> > > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either
> > include
> > >> > all
> > >> > > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on
> the
> > >> hook
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > all reviews from first time contributors.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <
> zmanji@apache.org
> > >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> Hey,
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started
> to
> > >> > > receive
> > >> > > >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not
> > >> populate
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible
> > person
> > >> to
> > >> > > >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for
> > >> dealing
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The
> responsibility
> > >> > could
> > >> > > be
> > >> > > >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the
> code.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> What do people think about this idea?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> --
> > >> > > >> Zameer Manji
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > -=Bill
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Zameer Manji
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Zameer Manji
> >
> >
>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org>.
I have set Joshua and Bill to be the defaults for now:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31496/
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This would work.
> Anyone assigned as reviewer in the RB need to either execute the
> review or excuse themselves to make sure all "ship it" votes are
> accounted for.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm ok with that, as I think it's a better experience for new
> contributors
> > than the current situation. However, my understanding is that we
> generally
> > have a policy that you need a ship it from everyone on the People line
> of a
> > review. If that's the case than the default people need to be cognizant
> of
> > their default status and be sure to remove themselves when appropriate
> > reviewers have been assigned.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Looking at the reviewboard documentation
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options
> >> >
> >> it
> >> seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to ensure the
> >> people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating it
> >> initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a good
> >> next step.
> >>
> >> I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review the
> >> patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth and
> >> expertise to review it for quality.
> >>
> >> Does anyone else volunteer?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for other
> >> > unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in
> mind.
> >> >
> >> > On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or shepherds
> >> > > business.
> >> > >
> >> > > Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing this
> >> > > concept.
> >> > >
> >> > > First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights and
> >> > > responsibilities.
> >> > > Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts
> that
> >> > > could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from one
> >> > > to another PMCs/ committers.
> >> > >
> >> > > This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
> >> > > "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
> >> > > contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
> >> > >
> >> > > - Henry
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <
> >> jcohen@twopensource.com
> >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across
> >> the
> >> > > code
> >> > > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not
> sure
> >> > > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either
> include
> >> > all
> >> > > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the
> >> hook
> >> > > for
> >> > > > all reviews from first time contributors.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org
> >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Hey,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to
> >> > > receive
> >> > > >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not
> >> populate
> >> > > the
> >> > > >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible
> person
> >> to
> >> > > >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for
> >> dealing
> >> > > with
> >> > > >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility
> >> > could
> >> > > be
> >> > > >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> What do people think about this idea?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --
> >> > > >> Zameer Manji
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > -=Bill
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Zameer Manji
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
> --
> Zameer Manji
>
>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
This would work.
Anyone assigned as reviewer in the RB need to either execute the
review or excuse themselves to make sure all "ship it" votes are
accounted for.
- Henry
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com> wrote:
> I'm ok with that, as I think it's a better experience for new contributors
> than the current situation. However, my understanding is that we generally
> have a policy that you need a ship it from everyone on the People line of a
> review. If that's the case than the default people need to be cognizant of
> their default status and be sure to remove themselves when appropriate
> reviewers have been assigned.
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the reviewboard documentation
>> <
>> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options
>> >
>> it
>> seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to ensure the
>> people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating it
>> initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a good
>> next step.
>>
>> I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review the
>> patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth and
>> expertise to review it for quality.
>>
>> Does anyone else volunteer?
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for other
>> > unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in mind.
>> >
>> > On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or shepherds
>> > > business.
>> > >
>> > > Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing this
>> > > concept.
>> > >
>> > > First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights and
>> > > responsibilities.
>> > > Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts that
>> > > could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from one
>> > > to another PMCs/ committers.
>> > >
>> > > This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
>> > > "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
>> > > contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
>> > >
>> > > - Henry
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <
>> jcohen@twopensource.com
>> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
>> > > >
>> > > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across
>> the
>> > > code
>> > > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure
>> > > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include
>> > all
>> > > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the
>> hook
>> > > for
>> > > > all reviews from first time contributors.
>> > > >
>> > > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org
>> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hey,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to
>> > > receive
>> > > >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not
>> populate
>> > > the
>> > > >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person
>> to
>> > > >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for
>> dealing
>> > > with
>> > > >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility
>> > could
>> > > be
>> > > >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> What do people think about this idea?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Zameer Manji
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > -=Bill
>> >
>> > --
>> > Zameer Manji
>> >
>> >
>>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>.
I'm ok with that, as I think it's a better experience for new contributors
than the current situation. However, my understanding is that we generally
have a policy that you need a ship it from everyone on the People line of a
review. If that's the case than the default people need to be cognizant of
their default status and be sure to remove themselves when appropriate
reviewers have been assigned.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Looking at the reviewboard documentation
> <
> https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options
> >
> it
> seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to ensure the
> people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating it
> initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a good
> next step.
>
> I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review the
> patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth and
> expertise to review it for quality.
>
> Does anyone else volunteer?
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for other
> > unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in mind.
> >
> > On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or shepherds
> > > business.
> > >
> > > Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing this
> > > concept.
> > >
> > > First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights and
> > > responsibilities.
> > > Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts that
> > > could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from one
> > > to another PMCs/ committers.
> > >
> > > This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
> > > "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
> > > contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
> > >
> > > - Henry
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <
> jcohen@twopensource.com
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
> > > >
> > > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across
> the
> > > code
> > > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure
> > > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include
> > all
> > > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the
> hook
> > > for
> > > > all reviews from first time contributors.
> > > >
> > > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hey,
> > > >>
> > > >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to
> > > receive
> > > >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not
> populate
> > > the
> > > >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person
> to
> > > >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for
> dealing
> > > with
> > > >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility
> > could
> > > be
> > > >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
> > > >>
> > > >> What do people think about this idea?
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Zameer Manji
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -=Bill
> >
> > --
> > Zameer Manji
> >
> >
>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org>.
Looking at the reviewboard documentation
<https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options>
it
seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to ensure the
people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating it
initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a good
next step.
I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review the
patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth and
expertise to review it for quality.
Does anyone else volunteer?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for other
> unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in mind.
>
> On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or shepherds
> > business.
> >
> > Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing this
> > concept.
> >
> > First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights and
> > responsibilities.
> > Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts that
> > could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from one
> > to another PMCs/ committers.
> >
> > This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
> > "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
> > contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
> >
> > - Henry
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <jcohen@twopensource.com
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
> > >
> > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across the
> > code
> > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure
> > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include
> all
> > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the hook
> > for
> > > all reviews from first time contributors.
> > >
> > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey,
> > >>
> > >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to
> > receive
> > >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not populate
> > the
> > >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person to
> > >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
> > >>
> > >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for dealing
> > with
> > >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility
> could
> > be
> > >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
> > >>
> > >> What do people think about this idea?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Zameer Manji
> > >>
> >
>
>
> --
> -=Bill
>
> --
> Zameer Manji
>
>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org>.
Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for other
unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in mind.
On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or shepherds
> business.
>
> Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing this
> concept.
>
> First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights and
> responsibilities.
> Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts that
> could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from one
> to another PMCs/ committers.
>
> This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
> "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
> contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <jcohen@twopensource.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
> >
> > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across the
> code
> > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure
> > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include all
> > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the hook
> for
> > all reviews from first time contributors.
> >
> > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to
> receive
> >> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not populate
> the
> >> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person to
> >> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
> >>
> >> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for dealing
> with
> >> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility could
> be
> >> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
> >>
> >> What do people think about this idea?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Zameer Manji
> >>
>
--
-=Bill
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or shepherds business.
Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing this concept.
First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights and
responsibilities.
Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts that
could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from one
to another PMCs/ committers.
This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the
"shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new
contributions to make sure got proper reviews.
- Henry
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com> wrote:
> +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
>
> Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across the code
> to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure
> Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include all
> active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the hook for
> all reviews from first time contributors.
>
> Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to receive
>> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not populate the
>> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person to
>> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
>>
>> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for dealing with
>> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility could be
>> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
>>
>> What do people think about this idea?
>>
>> --
>> Zameer Manji
>>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org>.
+1 to the idea. A first step in the right direction might be to do
something you (unintentionally?) implied - default People. We could do
this in .reviewboardrc [1], and let the people in there serve as
dispatchers to find the right reviewers. I'm happy to volunteer to be in
that list if that sounds good.
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/.reviewboardrc
-=Bill
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Zameer Manji <zm...@twopensource.com>
wrote:
> I think establishing MAINTAINERS/OWNERS files is another valid way of doing
> this.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
> >
> > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across the
> code
> > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure
> > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include all
> > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the hook
> for
> > all reviews from first time contributors.
> >
> > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to
> receive
> > > more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not populate
> the
> > > "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person to
> > > ensure we accept or reject contributions.
> > >
> > > I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for dealing
> > with
> > > reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility could
> > be
> > > limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
> > >
> > > What do people think about this idea?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Zameer Manji
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Zameer Manji
>
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Zameer Manji <zm...@twopensource.com>.
I think establishing MAINTAINERS/OWNERS files is another valid way of doing
this.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>
wrote:
> +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
>
> Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across the code
> to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure
> Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include all
> active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the hook for
> all reviews from first time contributors.
>
> Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to receive
> > more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not populate the
> > "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person to
> > ensure we accept or reject contributions.
> >
> > I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for dealing
> with
> > reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility could
> be
> > limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
> >
> > What do people think about this idea?
> >
> > --
> > Zameer Manji
> >
>
--
Zameer Manji
Re: Shepherding new contributions
Posted by Joshua Cohen <jc...@twopensource.com>.
+1, I was thinking about this over the weekend.
Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across the code
to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure
Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include all
active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the hook for
all reviews from first time contributors.
Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to receive
> more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not populate the
> "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person to
> ensure we accept or reject contributions.
>
> I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for dealing with
> reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility could be
> limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code.
>
> What do people think about this idea?
>
> --
> Zameer Manji
>