I thought this was the norm already? I have been the sole reviewer a few PRs by committers and I'm only a contributor.
+1 On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:13 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > ++1 > > This is good reasoning. If you trust someone with the committer > responsibilities [1] you should trust them to find an appropriate reviewer. > > Also: > > - adds a new way for non-committers and committers to bond > - makes committers seem less like gatekeepers because it goes both ways > - might help clear PR backlog, improving our community response latency > - encourages committers to code* > > Kenn > > [1] https://beam.apache.org/contribute/become-a-committer/ > > *With today's system, if a committer and a few non-committers are working > together, then when the committer writes code it is harder to get it merged > because it takes an extra committer. It is easier to have non-committers > write all the code and the committer just does reviews. It is 1 committer > vs 2 being involved. This used to be fine when almost everyone was a > committer and all working on the core, but it is not fine any more. > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:50 PM Thomas Groh <tg...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hey all; >> >> I've been thinking recently about the process we have for committing >> code, and our current process. I'd like to propose that we change our >> current process to require at least one committer is present for each code >> review, but remove the need to have a second committer review the code >> prior to submission if the original contributor is a committer. >> >> Generally, if we trust someone with the ability to merge code that >> someone else has written, I think it's sensible to also trust them to >> choose a capable reviewer. We expect that all of the people that we have >> recognized as committers will maintain the project's quality bar - and >> that's true for both code they author and code they review. Given that, I >> think it's sensible to expect a committer will choose a reviewer who is >> versed in the component they are contributing to who can provide insight >> and will also hold up the quality bar. >> >> Making this change will help spread the review load out among regular >> contributors to the project, and reduce bottlenecks caused by committers >> who have few other committers working on their same component. Obviously, >> this requires that committers act with the best interests of the project >> when they send out their code for reviews - but this is the behavior we >> demand before someone is recognized as a committer, so I don't see why that >> would be cause for concern. >> >> Yours, >> >> Thomas >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
