You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> on 2017/07/07 08:19:23 UTC
Introducing code owners
Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
horrible idea :-(
https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
s/coffee/code/
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 08:37 Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> The feature doesn't seem all that different to me than automatic
> assignment to component owners in JIRA or other bug trackers, which are
> useful for distributing triage. I'm not sure how I feel about requiring
> coffee reviews from owners, as a hard prerequisite, though.
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 04:19 Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
>> horrible idea :-(
>>
>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
>>
>
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
The feature doesn't seem all that different to me than automatic assignment
to component owners in JIRA or other bug trackers, which are useful for
distributing triage. I'm not sure how I feel about requiring coffee reviews
from owners, as a hard prerequisite, though.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 04:19 Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
> horrible idea :-(
>
> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
>
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Claude Warren <cl...@xenei.com>.
+1. Basically because I don't know why this is a horrible idea.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
> horrible idea :-(
>
> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
>
--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 11/07/2017 à 15:21, Rich Bowen a écrit :
>
> On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Champion <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean it
>>> sucks? Nah....
>> I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than
>> "code review notifications" which can be useful to have.
> Sure. And if it's used well, it could be great. But names are powerful
> things, and shape attitudes. To a beginner, approaching a project that
> they want to participate in, the notion that code is "owned" by someone
> can be a real deterrent.
>
Yes, I totally agree with these ideas
Jacques
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 12 July 2017 at 16:45, Jacob Champion <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 06:21 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>> On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>> I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than
>>> "code review notifications" which can be useful to have.
>>
>>
>> Sure. And if it's used well, it could be great. But names are powerful
>> things, and shape attitudes. To a beginner, approaching a project that they
>> want to participate in, the notion that code is "owned" by someone can be a
>> real deterrent.
>
>
> +1 to that.
ASF code can be considered to be 'owned' by the project developing it.
Since the feature allows the use of an email address, it should be
possible to add dev@xxx.apache.org as the code owner.
However I don't know if that would provide any benefit to ASF projects.
> --Jacob
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Jacob Champion <ch...@gmail.com>.
On 07/11/2017 06:21 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more
>> than "code review notifications" which can be useful to have.
>
> Sure. And if it's used well, it could be great. But names are
> powerful things, and shape attitudes. To a beginner, approaching a
> project that they want to participate in, the notion that code is
> "owned" by someone can be a real deterrent.
+1 to that.
--Jacob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Champion <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean it
>> sucks? Nah....
> I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than
> "code review notifications" which can be useful to have.
Sure. And if it's used well, it could be great. But names are powerful
things, and shape attitudes. To a beginner, approaching a project that
they want to participate in, the notion that code is "owned" by someone
can be a real deterrent.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Champion <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean it
> sucks? Nah....
I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than
"code review notifications" which can be useful to have.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Jacob Champion <ch...@gmail.com>.
On 07/10/2017 06:03 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 09:39 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>> I think "CODEOWNERS" is too strong a term; they should have been more
>> descriptive with CODEREVIEWERS or the like, since these aren't
>> necessarily owners of a file or project. That might be useful feedback
>> for github, but since they've already rolled it out, I doubt they'd
>> change it.
>
> Perhaps change it to COOKIELICKER instead?
>
> Every project I've worked in where someone "owned" a particular
> feature/file/method/document, that thing has ended up either getting
> neglected (because nobody else was willing to touch it) or caused fights
> (because someone else *was* willing to touch it).
I think Shane's point is that the feature doesn't actually imply
ownership; it implies required review. That can be twisted into
something negative, like code silos and cookie licking, or it can be
used to automate what some Apache projects are already doing. I think
it's a nice concept, if poorly named.
Has anyone actually tried to use the functionality? From their
documentation on the feature, you don't have to put a single person as
the reviewer -- you can specify a GitHub group. So, to give a concrete
example, httpd could protect their 2.4.x backport branch with the group
of httpd committers, protect the docs/ directory with httpd-docs
committers, and put security-critical files on review with the security
team. The automation means that it's harder for things to slip through
the cracks: if that "documentation-only" pull request suddenly requires
a security review, something is *wrong*.
Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean
it sucks? Nah.
--Jacob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 07/07/2017 09:39 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> I think "CODEOWNERS" is too strong a term; they should have been more
> descriptive with CODEREVIEWERS or the like, since these aren't
> necessarily owners of a file or project. That might be useful feedback
> for github, but since they've already rolled it out, I doubt they'd
> change it.
Perhaps change it to COOKIELICKER instead?
Every project I've worked in where someone "owned" a particular
feature/file/method/document, that thing has ended up either getting
neglected (because nobody else was willing to touch it) or caused fights
(because someone else *was* willing to touch it).
So, yeah, terrible idea for anything but one-person projects. It's
basically putting a sign on something that says "no other ideas welcome."
FWIW, I added it to my list of things to blog about, but I don't know if
I'll get to it quickly enough for my response to be timely and relevant.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
I think that it is great for projects to use multiple mechanisms to ensure
quick review. This is a fine mechanism.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Phil Sorber <so...@apache.org> wrote:
> Aside from the strong "owner" language, do you think this is a bad idea?
> Seems like picking some default reviewers to look at some code they are
> both motivated to review and likely familiar with is generally a good idea.
> Would it be different if it were called "Potentially Interested Parties" or
> similar?
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:39 AM Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>
> > P. Taylor Goetz wrote on 7/7/17 8:48 AM:
> > >> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is
> a
> > >>> horrible idea :-(
> > >>>
> > >>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it a horrible idea?
> > >
> > > It would imply that some individuals have more authority, ownership,
> > etc. than others. In Apache projects all committers and PMC members are
> > equal.
> > >
> > > -Taylor
> >
> > To clarify: This is a bad idea... for *Apache* projects, or
> > community-led projects. It may be a fine idea for either hierarchical
> > projects (i.e. traditional corporate ones) or for single-maintainer /
> > BDFL run projects. So I'm not surprised Github added it, and I'll bet
> > some non-community style projects will think this is a great idea.
> >
> > I think "CODEOWNERS" is too strong a term; they should have been more
> > descriptive with CODEREVIEWERS or the like, since these aren't
> > necessarily owners of a file or project. That might be useful feedback
> > for github, but since they've already rolled it out, I doubt they'd
> > change it.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > - Shane
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Phil Sorber <so...@apache.org>.
Aside from the strong "owner" language, do you think this is a bad idea?
Seems like picking some default reviewers to look at some code they are
both motivated to review and likely familiar with is generally a good idea.
Would it be different if it were called "Potentially Interested Parties" or
similar?
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:39 AM Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> P. Taylor Goetz wrote on 7/7/17 8:48 AM:
> >> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
> >>> horrible idea :-(
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
> >>
> >>
> >>> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it a horrible idea?
> >
> > It would imply that some individuals have more authority, ownership,
> etc. than others. In Apache projects all committers and PMC members are
> equal.
> >
> > -Taylor
>
> To clarify: This is a bad idea... for *Apache* projects, or
> community-led projects. It may be a fine idea for either hierarchical
> projects (i.e. traditional corporate ones) or for single-maintainer /
> BDFL run projects. So I'm not surprised Github added it, and I'll bet
> some non-community style projects will think this is a great idea.
>
> I think "CODEOWNERS" is too strong a term; they should have been more
> descriptive with CODEREVIEWERS or the like, since these aren't
> necessarily owners of a file or project. That might be useful feedback
> for github, but since they've already rolled it out, I doubt they'd
> change it.
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <ke...@mcgrail.com>.
+1 Shane. That explains my exact take on it as well.
Regards,
KAM
On July 7, 2017 9:39:51 AM EDT, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>P. Taylor Goetz wrote on 7/7/17 8:48 AM:
>>> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this
>is a
>>>> horrible idea :-(
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it a horrible idea?
>>
>> It would imply that some individuals have more authority, ownership,
>etc. than others. In Apache projects all committers and PMC members are
>equal.
>>
>> -Taylor
>
>To clarify: This is a bad idea... for *Apache* projects, or
>community-led projects. It may be a fine idea for either hierarchical
>projects (i.e. traditional corporate ones) or for single-maintainer /
>BDFL run projects. So I'm not surprised Github added it, and I'll bet
>some non-community style projects will think this is a great idea.
>
>I think "CODEOWNERS" is too strong a term; they should have been more
>descriptive with CODEREVIEWERS or the like, since these aren't
>necessarily owners of a file or project. That might be useful feedback
>for github, but since they've already rolled it out, I doubt they'd
>change it.
>
>
>--
>
>- Shane
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
P. Taylor Goetz wrote on 7/7/17 8:48 AM:
>> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
>>> horrible idea :-(
>>>
>>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
>>
>>
>>> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it a horrible idea?
>
> It would imply that some individuals have more authority, ownership, etc. than others. In Apache projects all committers and PMC members are equal.
>
> -Taylor
To clarify: This is a bad idea... for *Apache* projects, or
community-led projects. It may be a fine idea for either hierarchical
projects (i.e. traditional corporate ones) or for single-maintainer /
BDFL run projects. So I'm not surprised Github added it, and I'll bet
some non-community style projects will think this is a great idea.
I think "CODEOWNERS" is too strong a term; they should have been more
descriptive with CODEREVIEWERS or the like, since these aren't
necessarily owners of a file or project. That might be useful feedback
for github, but since they've already rolled it out, I doubt they'd
change it.
--
- Shane
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
>> horrible idea :-(
>>
>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
>
>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it a horrible idea?
It would imply that some individuals have more authority, ownership, etc. than others. In Apache projects all committers and PMC members are equal.
-Taylor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Introducing code owners
Posted by Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com>.
fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>:
> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
> horrible idea :-(
>
> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it a horrible idea?
--
Erik