Re: JIRAs and Pull Requests Cleanup

[Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org>]

There's one other thing that I would personally find helpful. When a
committer is reviewing a PR, I propose assigning it to yourself on
GitHub. This serves two functions: 1) it makes it clear that someone
has taken responsibility for the PR, and 2) it lets you easily go back
and look at PRs you have assigned to yourself to make sure none of
them fall through the cracks.

Sometimes I have a small amount of time I can carve out to review a
couple PRs and the quicker I can find ones that aren't already "spoken
for", the better.

--
Michael Mior
mmior@apache.org

Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 17:36, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> Two things that we are doing that are working:
>  * Use the “pull-request-available” tag for JIRA cases;
>  * Beat down the number of open cases with the “pull-request-available” tag in the lead up to the release.
>
> Let’s continue doing these.
>
> Shall we agree a target of number of open cases with “pull-request-available” that we want to aim for before RC 1 of 1.19? And perhaps a date that we want to achieve it by?
>
> Right now there are 92[1]. I propose that we get to 40 by Wednesday.
>
> I’m not against the PR template, or the Stale bot, but let’s have that discussion after the release. Right now, there’s s**t to be shoveled, and I thank those of you who have picked up a shovel. (Especially Kevin.)
>
> Julian
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20CALCITE%20%26%20labels%20%3D%20pull-request-available%20%26%20statusCategory%20%3D%20%22To%20Do%22%20 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20=%20CALCITE%20&%20labels%20=%20pull-request-available%20&%20statusCategory%20=%20%22To%20Do%22>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Kevin Risden <kr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > As of now, the open PRs and Calcite JIRAs are close enough to matching (96
> > vs 98). (There are a few for Avatica in the JIRA query). Thanks all those
> > that helped clean up.
> >
> > Kevin Risden
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:21 PM Kevin Risden <kr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> One thing that I think would help is to add a Github PR template [1]. We
> >> did this for Apache Knox to help make sure that PRs follow some simple
> >> guidelines. After the gitbox migration, PRs are automatically linked to
> >> JIRA (which is good). I think we just had some PRs prior to gitbox
> >> migration that didn't have the autolink part.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
> >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1760
> >>
> >> Kevin Risden
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:07 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <
> >> sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Francis> Our problem is mainly due to PRs not being reviewed.
> >>>
> >>> Once upon a time I did try to pass over the PRs, and I added some randoms
> >>> here and there.
> >>> I'm not sure what others think of that, however we have:
> >>>
> >>> 17 "returned-with-feedback":
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/apache/calcite/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Areturned-with-feedback
> >>> 6 with pending discussion in JIRA:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/apache/calcite/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Adiscussion-in-jira
> >>>
> >>> I like "LGTM-will-merge-soon" as a soft warning to other committers that
> >>> "hey, either you chime in or I just commit this stuff".
> >>> We have 2 by the way:
> >>> https://github.com/apache/calcite/labels/LGTM-will-merge-soon
> >>>
> >>> Vladimir
> >>>
> >>
>