Re: code review

[Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com>]

Sounds good to me!
-Gon

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Julia Wang (QIUHE) <Qiuhe.Wang@microsoft.com
> wrote:

> When we use CodeFlow or some other tools, we used to specify required and
> optional code reviewers. This is to make sure the modified code are
> reviewed by people who also worked on that code before, or who are also
> working on the related portions. When we send a PR for review though
> GitHub, there is no place for us to specify who are the required reviewers.
> I would suggest us to use @alias to specify required reviewers when
> seeding a PR for review. In this way, people won't miss any code review.
> For those who are not mentioned, they can always be optional reviewers.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Julia
>



-- 
Byung-Gon Chun

Re: code review

[Dongjoon Hyun <do...@apache.org>]

+1 to Markus's & Anupam's.

Warmly,
Dongjoon.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Anupam <an...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to Markus' suggestion. I don't think "required" reviewers is in the
> spirit of the development philosophy we follow?
>
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 11:02, Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de> wrote:
> > +1 on asking people to help with the reviews. I believe we do this today
> > already, right?
> >
> > Now, there is a line we shouldn't cross, and that is the idea of having
> > "maintainers" or "owners" of different parts of the code base. The code
> > is in whole owned by the community, and every committer should feel free
> > to commit to all parts of the code base. In fact, it is beneficial for
> > community health to review outside of our usual area of expertise, to
> > make sure that the code as a whole is most broadly understood.
> >
> > Makes sense?
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
> > On 2016-02-09 08:17, Yunseong Lee wrote:
> >> +1 :-)
> >>
> >> Thanks for the great suggestion, Julia!
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Yunseong
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds good to me!
> >>> -Gon
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Julia Wang (QIUHE) <
> >>> Qiuhe.Wang@microsoft.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> When we use CodeFlow or some other tools, we used to specify required
> and
> >>>> optional code reviewers. This is to make sure the modified code are
> >>>> reviewed by people who also worked on that code before, or who are
> also
> >>>> working on the related portions. When we send a PR for review though
> >>>> GitHub, there is no place for us to specify who are the required
> >>> reviewers.
> >>>> I would suggest us to use @alias to specify required reviewers when
> >>>> seeding a PR for review. In this way, people won't miss any code
> review.
> >>>> For those who are not mentioned, they can always be optional
> reviewers.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Julia
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Byung-Gon Chun
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Anupam
> Bellevue, WA
> Ph: +1 (425)-777-5570
>

Re: code review

[Anupam <an...@gmail.com>]

+1 to Markus' suggestion. I don't think "required" reviewers is in the
spirit of the development philosophy we follow?


On 9 February 2016 at 11:02, Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de> wrote:
> +1 on asking people to help with the reviews. I believe we do this today
> already, right?
>
> Now, there is a line we shouldn't cross, and that is the idea of having
> "maintainers" or "owners" of different parts of the code base. The code
> is in whole owned by the community, and every committer should feel free
> to commit to all parts of the code base. In fact, it is beneficial for
> community health to review outside of our usual area of expertise, to
> make sure that the code as a whole is most broadly understood.
>
> Makes sense?
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 2016-02-09 08:17, Yunseong Lee wrote:
>> +1 :-)
>>
>> Thanks for the great suggestion, Julia!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yunseong
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds good to me!
>>> -Gon
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Julia Wang (QIUHE) <
>>> Qiuhe.Wang@microsoft.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When we use CodeFlow or some other tools, we used to specify required and
>>>> optional code reviewers. This is to make sure the modified code are
>>>> reviewed by people who also worked on that code before, or who are also
>>>> working on the related portions. When we send a PR for review though
>>>> GitHub, there is no place for us to specify who are the required
>>> reviewers.
>>>> I would suggest us to use @alias to specify required reviewers when
>>>> seeding a PR for review. In this way, people won't miss any code review.
>>>> For those who are not mentioned, they can always be optional reviewers.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Julia
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Byung-Gon Chun
>>>
>>



-- 
Anupam
Bellevue, WA
Ph: +1 (425)-777-5570

Re: code review

[Markus Weimer <ma...@weimo.de>]

+1 on asking people to help with the reviews. I believe we do this today
already, right?

Now, there is a line we shouldn't cross, and that is the idea of having
"maintainers" or "owners" of different parts of the code base. The code
is in whole owned by the community, and every committer should feel free
to commit to all parts of the code base. In fact, it is beneficial for
community health to review outside of our usual area of expertise, to
make sure that the code as a whole is most broadly understood.

Makes sense?

Markus


On 2016-02-09 08:17, Yunseong Lee wrote:
> +1 :-)
> 
> Thanks for the great suggestion, Julia!
> 
> Regards,
> Yunseong
> 
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Sounds good to me!
>> -Gon
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Julia Wang (QIUHE) <
>> Qiuhe.Wang@microsoft.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> When we use CodeFlow or some other tools, we used to specify required and
>>> optional code reviewers. This is to make sure the modified code are
>>> reviewed by people who also worked on that code before, or who are also
>>> working on the related portions. When we send a PR for review though
>>> GitHub, there is no place for us to specify who are the required
>> reviewers.
>>> I would suggest us to use @alias to specify required reviewers when
>>> seeding a PR for review. In this way, people won't miss any code review.
>>> For those who are not mentioned, they can always be optional reviewers.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Julia
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Byung-Gon Chun
>>
> 

Re: code review

[Yunseong Lee <yu...@gmail.com>]

+1 :-)

Thanks for the great suggestion, Julia!

Regards,
Yunseong

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Byung-Gon Chun <bg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds good to me!
> -Gon
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Julia Wang (QIUHE) <
> Qiuhe.Wang@microsoft.com
> > wrote:
>
> > When we use CodeFlow or some other tools, we used to specify required and
> > optional code reviewers. This is to make sure the modified code are
> > reviewed by people who also worked on that code before, or who are also
> > working on the related portions. When we send a PR for review though
> > GitHub, there is no place for us to specify who are the required
> reviewers.
> > I would suggest us to use @alias to specify required reviewers when
> > seeding a PR for review. In this way, people won't miss any code review.
> > For those who are not mentioned, they can always be optional reviewers.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Julia
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Byung-Gon Chun
>