Thanks all for the responses.
I've opened https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/36474 for a more
selective approach as preferred by most. See you there :-)
Regards
Antoine.
Le 05/07/2023 à 06:22, Alenka Frim a écrit :
I agree with what was said till now.
I did agree to be added as a codeowner for the Python directory which didn't
turn out to be the best idea. As Joris mentioned, the number of
notifications
is not small. There are lots of PRs that are not Python related, but maybe
just have a test added in Python and therefore I am not capable of
reviewing.
So similarly as Dewey mentioned, most of the PRs on which I get assigned
to as a reviewer I simply ignore.
Not perfect, for sure. Hopefully that didn't in reality cause too much
bewilderment and bad experience from the side of the contributors.
But what I do like with this approach is that I am aware of most of the
things
that go on in the project and could be connected to pyarrow.
To give a "vote" on the proposed way forward, I think the second option
(de-assigning themselves, and if possible pinging another core developer)
could be a good way to go. If we would be expected to give a review on each
PR we are assigned to it would be fair that I remove myself from the
CODEOWNERS file.
Best,
Alenka
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 12:05 AM Will Jones <will.jones...@gmail.com> wrote:
I haven't had as much time to review the Parquet PRs, so I'll remove myself
from the CODEOWNERS for that.
I've found that I have a much easier time keeping up with PR reviews in
projects that are smaller, even if there are proportionally fewer
maintainers. I think that's the piece that appealed to me originally about
CODEOWNERS: that we could start to make there be some more clarity on how
reviewing responsibility can be divided up. But I agree it hasn't really
lived up to that hope.
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 1:13 PM Joris Van den Bossche <
jorisvandenboss...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it can be useful in certain cases, where the selection is
specific enough (for example if all Go related PRs is not too much for
Matt, this features sounds useful for him. I can also imagine if you
are working on flight, just getting notifications for changes to the
flight-related files might be useful).
Personally, for myself I didn't add my name to the CODEOWNERS, because
as someone doing general pyarrow maintenance, I was thinking that
adding my name as owner of "python" directory would lead to way too
many notifications for me, and there is no obvious more specific
selection.
So if it's useful for some people, I wouldn't necessarily remove it,
as long as: 1) everyone individually evaluates for themselves whether
this is working or not (and it's fine to remove some entries again),
and 2) we know this is not a system to properly ping reviewers for all
PRs, and we still need to manually ping reviewers in other cases.
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 20:11, Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've found it useful for me so far since it auto adds me on any Go
related
PRs so I don't need to sift through the notifications or active PRs,
and
instead can easily find them in my reviews on GitHub notifications.
But if everyone else finds it more detrimental than helpful I can set
up
a
custom filter or something.
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023, 12:30 PM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I agree the experiment isn't working very well. I've been meaning to
change my listing from `compute` to `acero` for a while. I'd be +1
for
just removing it though.
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023, 6:44 AM Dewey Dunnington
<de...@voltrondata.com.invalid>
wrote:
Just a note that for me, the main problem is that I get automatic
review requests for PRs that have nothing to do with R (I think
this
happens when a rebase occurs that contained an R commit). Because
that
happens a lot, it means I miss actual review requests and sometimes
mentions because they blend in. I think CODEOWNERS results in me
reviewing more PRs than if I had to set up some kind of custom
notification filter but I agree that it's not perfect.
Cheers,
-dewey
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 10:04 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org
wrote:
Hello,
Some time ago we added a `.github/CODEOWNERS` file in the main
Arrow
repo. The idea is that, when specific files or directories are
touched
by a PR, specific people are asked for review.
Unfortunately, it seems that, most of the time, this produces the
following effects:
1) the people who are automatically queried for review don't show
up
(perhaps they simply ignore those automatic notifications)
2) when several people are assigned for review, each designated
reviewer
seems to hope that the other ones will be doing the work, instead
of
doing it themselves
3) contributors expect those people to show up and are therefore
bewildered when nobody comes to review their PR
Do we want to keep CODEOWNERS? If we still think it can be
beneficial,
we should institute a policy where people who are listed in that
file
promise to respond to review requests: 1) either by doing a
review
2)
or
by de-assigning themselves, and if possible pinging another core
developer.
What do you think?
Regards
Antoine.
