Thanks for raising this topic Alex, I think it is certainly worthwhile to try and reduce the amount of time PRs are spent waiting for a review.
I know I am a bit late to the party here, as I see Richard is trying to get a consensus. However, I have spent a bit of time the last couple of days doing some analysis of git repos and don't want the observations to go to waste. There are two things here I want to mention; the meta question about the eyeball test and the YOML PR. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ The Metaquestion/Eyeball test > I haven't done as much review as I'd like, but the code is clearly > helpful, not risky or obviously wrong or breaking compatibility, it has > good test coverage, and we can reasonably expect the contributor or > committers to maintain it. Leaving open a bit longer in case someone else > wants to review more but if nothing further in the next few days, let's > merge. Reading it through, I don't see why this is an eyeball test. Your checks are: 1) helpful 2) nothing risky/obviously wrong/breaking compatibility 3) good test coverage 4) we can reasonably expect the contributor or committers to maintain it In my opinion, If a PR passes these checks, then we have reviewed it. Essentially, I think our standards for a review are too high. For instance, I don't think there is necessarily a need to check out the code and test it- which we often do. I'd maybe add follows best practices to that list as well. So I am all in favour of an eyeball test, or reducing the standard for review. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ YOML PR To address this separately. Yes, we do sometimes have PRs sitting around for awhile. In my opinion these are often either large, or WIP PRs. To address why it is taking a while to review, we have to look at those PRs. In my opinion, these PRs are too big to actually review. I've tried a couple of times to understand YOML, but I just can't wrap my head around it. If I was applying the eyeball criteria to it, I wouldn't be able to say that it ticks off (1) and (2) without spending a lot more time. I wanted to double check whether or not my statement about this PR being too big was accurate, so I used the github API to do some research. I picked brooklyn-server and 4 other open source repos. Some quite mature like spark, and some less so like Kubernetes. I looked at the last 500 prs that were closed, sorted by the number of additions and removed any mistakes (there were quite a few broken PRs). Top Ten biggest PRs K8s JClouds Kafka Brooklyn Server Spark 5303 28932 7417 2670 1049 4064 11622 5271 2600 749 2901 4302 4452 2186 710 2896 3665 4208 1956 682 2079 3004 3837 1952 677 2043 1660 3681 1870 642 1939 1523 3549 1620 616 1763 1419 3124 1619 571 1647 1363 2515 1619 569 1606 1294 2165 1543 547 It's also worth looking at the average and standard deviation for these repos (again, last 500 closed PRs with obvious mistakes removed) Avg + Std dev K8s JClouds Kafka Brooklyn Server Spark Average 104.85 206.41 204.65 199.63 62.52 StdDev 418.90 1,428.16 640.85 358.36 121.54 I have put some notes on my working at [1]. Looking at this data, it is clear that the YOML PR, which clocks in at 12,758 additions, is an outlier. It's a record for Brooklyn and outstrips the other repos that I was looking at. There was only one with more lines changed (and one other that was close): 1) "JCLOUDS-172: Promote Google Compute Engine", 28932, https://github .com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/787 2) "Promoted Docker", 11622, https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/1002 Both of these are adding standalone extensions to the project that were developed in JClouds labs first and then merged into master later. So there would have been multiple PRs/reviews before that got into master. In fact, a number of the large PRs in JClouds are like this (hence the rather large standard deviation). Looking at the standard deviation as well it seems that PR's that go into the thousands are rare and into the tens of thousands exceedingly rare. So, there are two points I'd like to make. Firstly, it may be worthwhile looking into how JClouds approaches these large code additions and maybe follow a similar process for YOML. I wonder if we can separate it out, develop it outside of Brooklyn-Server master and then merge back in later. Maybe Andrea, or Svet or one of the other JClouds committers could shed some light on the JClouds labs process and if it could apply here. Secondly, you're right to be annoyed that it has taken 7 months. I think you should have received a response much sooner- but that response should have been to say it is too big, and we need a plan for handling it differently. IMHO, it seems that no-one felt comfortable commenting on the PR and making this point, and that is part of the issue here. It was just sort of left in limbo which isn't great for the PR raiser or the community. So, I favour any suggestions on how to deal with these kind of situations that further empower Brooklyn reviewers to comment on PRs like this to raise concerns and/or ask for simplification/re-work/labs approach. Lastly, I don't just want to single out your YOML PR here as this certainly isn't a unique situation. Any PR which enters into the multiple thousands of lines added is in my opinion getting too big to review- and you're not the only one to create a PR like that! Regards, Graeme Miller [1] In the interests of transparency, full data set here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zDXyhs9AOW1s3f 0Zhd3oZlAW4nKdn7hLPd-118zwPhw/edit?usp=sharing Some notes: *) I had to manually remove PRs from the data set that were obviously broken (e.g. Spark 17547 <https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17547>) or were part of some greater release process (Kubernetes 44824 <https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/44824>). I have tried to do this fairly, however there is a chance that things were removed that shouldn't be, or things were left in that shouldn't be. *) I tried to stick to Apache Repos. Apache doesn't host the repos on github, it mirrors them there. Because of this it is not clear what was closed and what was merged. The data should be thought of as containing closed PRs not merged PRs. *) I used the pygithub library to get this data. Code here: > g = Github(login_or_token="user", "password") > repo = g.get_organization("apache").get_repo("brooklyn-server") > first500PRs= repo.get_pulls(state="closed")[:500] > for pr in first500PRs: > print pr.title, "**", pr.additions, "**", pr.deletions *) I only looked at additions. There may be different results for additions-subtractions (to get rid of any moved files that git couldn't process correctly) or even additions + subtractions (if you are reviewing a PR, you have to look at the subtractions as well) On 4 May 2017 at 09:38, Geoff Macartney <geoff.macart...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > +1 to eyeballing > > Some other random thoughts: > > - but let's put some emphasis on that 3rd point about good test coverage. > It is a lot less unnerving to accept a non-trivial PR with good test > coverage than one without, and just reading the tests is often the best way > to figure out what a PR is actually doing > - "master" _is_ pretty stable, and it would be a shame to get away from > that; > - I think some guidelines would help. At the end of the day each PR is a > judgement call, but it's about setting expectations - e.g. reviewers don't > necessarily have to figure out all the implications and possible problems a > PR might introduce, just make an "honest effort" to review what they see. > > > > > On Wed, 3 May 2017 at 23:52 Richard Downer <rich...@apache.org> wrote: > > > All, > > > > A lot of very good points going on here - thank you to everyone who has > > contributed to this conversation. It's clear that we are doing a > disservice > > to our contributors and things need to change. We need to be merging (or, > > rarely, rejecting) PRs consistently and promptly. Obviously, difficulty > > comes in how we do this while keeping quality up. > > > > After reading the debate so far, I think Alex has come up with a simple > and > > sensible suggestion: > > > > On 03/05/2017 02:13, Alex Heneveld wrote: > > > > > I'm suggesting we make more of an effort, and we fall back to an > "eyeball > > > test" a certain period of time (7 days max, less if it's simple?), > triage > > > the review to look at: > > > > > > * clearly helpful & not obviously wrong > > > * low-risk / doesn't break compatibility > > > * good test coverage (and passing) > > > * likely to be maintained > > > > > > If these can't be confirmed, the reviewer should say what they have > > doubts > > > about, maybe suggest what the contributor could do to help, or appeal > to > > > other committers more familiar with an area. In any case get a > discussion > > > going. > > > > > > If these do seem confirmed, I still suggest we don't merge immediately > in > > > the absence of a thorough review, but ping specific committers likely > to > > be > > > interested. If no thorough review after a few more days, _then_ merge. > > > > > > I'm not suggesting any heavyweight process, but just enough to put > > healthy > > > forces on us as reviewers. > > > > > > > And Aled makes some sensible observations around this subject: > > > > On 03/05/2017 09:41, Aled Sage wrote: > > > > > 1. Some PRs don't get enough attention from reviewers. > > > > > > 2. Not as much time as we'd like is spent by the community reviewing > PRs. > > > > > > 3. The bar for being merged is too high (for at least some PRs). > > > > > > 4. Some PRs are very hard to review. > > > > > > There are clearly examples of (1) where it's a no-brainer we should > have > > > given it more attention, commented and merged. Your proposal for the > > > "eye-ball test" will help for some. > > > > > > However, there are also examples of (1) that are caused by (4) - > commonly > > > due to the complexity of the code being changed (e.g. > > config-inheritance), > > > sometimes made worse by it changing many things (so it's more daunting > to > > > review). > > > > > > Given (2) and (3), it suggests we should spread that time across more > PRs > > > (i.e. some PRs that are getting a very thorough review could get less, > > and > > > folk try to use that "saved" time on some other PRs). I'm not convinced > > > that would actually happen in practice though! > > > > > > > > > *Solutions* > > > > > > 1. Add the "eye-ball test" to our reviewer guidelines (as described by > > > Alex) - and adjust our perception of "low-risk" over time, as we see > how > > it > > > works. > > > > > > 2. Guidelines for PRs - what will make the reviewers' job considerably > > > easier, so we can get things merged faster? For example, small and > > focused > > > PRs, with good test coverage, linking to a jira issue where > appropriate. > > > > > > 3. Invest more time simplifying Brooklyn (see below). > > > > > > > > > *Complexity of Brooklyn* > > > I've heard from quite a few people that certain areas of Brooklyn are > far > > > too hard to understand. Some people avoid reviewing PRs that touch it, > > > because it's so hard to understand the implications - they focus their > > time > > > on PRs that they feel more confident to review. > > > > > > This is a symptom of an overly complex project. It would be great to > find > > > more time to simplify things - e.g. to delete things from Brooklyn, to > > make > > > things more consistent, to refactor or even rewrite some sections, and > to > > > add more javadoc. > > > > > > > > > *Accepted Limitations to Timely Review* > > > PRs that make far reaching changes to low-level details of Brooklyn > will > > > always require a thorough review. Clearly we should try to find the > time > > > for that promptly, but should always view them as high-risk. > > > > > > Thomas also makes a good observation which is that `master` would have to > > be considered unstable. This is true, although the committers are still > > acting as gatekeepers, so it won't be a wild west out there - but it does > > mean that taking the bleeding-edge code would be somewhat higher risk. > This > > does complicate things when we come near to release time. Some projects > use > > Git branching models such as [1]; other projects only accept "new > feature" > > PRs at certain points in the release cycle and have strict stabilisation > > phases near the end of a cycle. This is something that we will need to > > discuss. > > > > Alex and Aled have both made some suggestions about how to mitigate that > > risk, and I'd add that we should also push for bug fix PRs to boost test > > coverage to reduce the chance of the problem happening again. > > > > I'd also explicitly make the point that it's generally accepted in open > > source communities that a contributor is expected to make some effort to > > make their contribution easy to review and accept, and can expect > pushback > > if their contribution is poorly structured or neglects tests, for example > > (Alex alludes to this as "maybe suggest what the contributor could do to > > help" and Aled states it explicitly as "guidelines for PRs"). Setting up > a > > list of rules could be seen as strict/inflexible and possibly daunting > for > > a new committer, but there is an advantage in setting down some best > > practices (an expansion of what we already have at [2]) and being > flexible > > in their interpretation. Where we are currently failing here is that when > > faced with a difficult contribution, we don't push back to the > contributor > > and make it clear what we would like to see - instead the contribution is > > just ignored. > > > > To add some of my own opinions: this is just software, it's supposed to > be > > malleable and changing, and we have SCM and tests as a safety net. Let's > > take some more risks. Along the way we'll inevitably make mistakes and > > things will break, sometimes at the worst possible time - accept that > this > > is normal, and learn from the experience. We're just making a release now > > so we've got a couple of months to experiment, during which time we can > > tweak our interpretations of risk etc. and converge on a release-quality > > build. > > > > While some of the surrounding details need to be worked out (such as how > do > > we do a release if master is unstable): > > > > *do we feel like we are converging on an acceptable position based around > > Alex's eyeball review concept?* > > > > Thanks > > Richard. > > > > > > [1]http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > [2] > > > > https://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/how-to-contribute.htm > l#pull-request-at-github > > > > > > On 3 May 2017 at 17:38, Sam Corbett <sam.corb...@cloudsoftcorp.com> > wrote: > > > > > I used GitHub to check the number of pull requests we've merged to a > few > > > of our projects over the last year in two month-chunks [1]. Each list > > > begins today and works backwards: > > > > > > brooklyn-server: 86, 79, 85, 68, 95, 78. > > > brooklyn-client: 7, 4, 3, 8, 2, 4. > > > brooklyn-library: 11, 12, 9, 7, 17, 8. > > > total: 104, 95, 97, 83, 114, 90. > > > > > > It's my opinion that these numbers show a consistency in the rate at > > which > > > we merge pull requests. Since a few committers have recently joined I > > > expect the rate to increase over the next few months. I would like to > > know > > > other figures like the average length of time between opening a pull > > > request and a committer merging it and the average length of time > before > > > the first review comment. I'm sure there are many other interesting > > metrics > > > that could inform this discussion. > > > > > > Maybe there's just one or two cases that we have managed badly. > > > Identifying those pull requests and understanding the cause of the > delay > > to > > > each one would be valuable. > > > > > > Regarding the complexity of Brooklyn and speaking as someone that has > > used > > > it in anger (sometimes literally) I would posit that many of us have > been > > > caught out several times by the corner cases and unexpected > interactions > > > between components that complexity so often implies. This leads to > > cautious > > > reviews and slow turnaround times. Quick-scan reviews solve the speed > at > > > which we get code into the product. We need to think harder about how > we > > > reduce its overall complexity. > > > > > > Sam > > > > > > 1. I used GitHub's interface to search for "is:pr > > > merged:2017-03-04..2017-05-03", etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/05/2017 09:41, Aled Sage wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Alex, > > >> > > >> I agree with you that we have a problem with the reviewing of some of > > our > > >> PRs - it's a bad situation for all concerned when these PRs stay open > > for > > >> as long as they do. > > >> > > >> I agree with your "eye-ball test" for a certain class of PR. I think > > >> where we probably disagree is where the line is for "low-risk" PRs. > > There > > >> are some examples where they "eye-ball test" would certainly have > > helped. > > >> > > >> I deliberately expanded the scope of this discussion, because there's > > not > > >> one single solution - I'm not "turning this discussion in to > guidelines > > >> about PR". I'm adding to the discussion. > > >> > > >> > > >> *Contributing Factors* > > >> Breaking this down into the contributing factors, I believe those are: > > >> > > >> 1. Some PRs don't get enough attention from reviewers. > > >> > > >> 2. Not as much time as we'd like is spent by the community reviewing > > PRs. > > >> > > >> 3. The bar for being merged is too high (for at least some PRs). > > >> > > >> 4. Some PRs are very hard to review. > > >> > > >> There are clearly examples of (1) where it's a no-brainer we should > have > > >> given it more attention, commented and merged. Your proposal for the > > >> "eye-ball test" will help for some. > > >> > > >> However, there are also examples of (1) that are caused by (4) - > > commonly > > >> due to the complexity of the code being changed (e.g. > > config-inheritance), > > >> sometimes made worse by it changing many things (so it's more daunting > > to > > >> review). > > >> > > >> Given (2) and (3), it suggests we should spread that time across more > > PRs > > >> (i.e. some PRs that are getting a very thorough review could get less, > > and > > >> folk try to use that "saved" time on some other PRs). I'm not > convinced > > >> that would actually happen in practice though! > > >> > > >> > > >> *Solutions* > > >> > > >> 1. Add the "eye-ball test" to our reviewer guidelines (as described by > > >> Alex) - and adjust our perception of "low-risk" over time, as we see > > how it > > >> works. > > >> > > >> 2. Guidelines for PRs - what will make the reviewers' job considerably > > >> easier, so we can get things merged faster? For example, small and > > focused > > >> PRs, with good test coverage, linking to a jira issue where > appropriate. > > >> > > >> 3. Invest more time simplifying Brooklyn (see below). > > >> > > >> > > >> *Complexity of Brooklyn* > > >> I've heard from quite a few people that certain areas of Brooklyn are > > far > > >> too hard to understand. Some people avoid reviewing PRs that touch it, > > >> because it's so hard to understand the implications - they focus their > > time > > >> on PRs that they feel more confident to review. > > >> > > >> This is a symptom of an overly complex project. It would be great to > > find > > >> more time to simplify things - e.g. to delete things from Brooklyn, to > > make > > >> things more consistent, to refactor or even rewrite some sections, and > > to > > >> add more javadoc. > > >> > > >> > > >> *Accepted Limitations to Timely Review* > > >> PRs that make far reaching changes to low-level details of Brooklyn > will > > >> always require a thorough review. Clearly we should try to find the > time > > >> for that promptly, but should always view them as high-risk. > > >> > > >> > > >> *YOML* > > >> If you insist on generalising YOML here, rather than a separate email > > >> thread specifically about it, then: we should have commented very > > quickly > > >> and discussed it promptly on the mailing list - at the level of > whether > > we > > >> want it (ignoring much of its technical details). If it was pretty > much > > >> anyone but Alex, then we should have commented saying: > > >> > > >> "Very interesting, but this is a huge amount of code to add and > > >> maintain in Brooklyn. Can you instead create a new github project > > >> for this library, so that it can be worked on and maintained > > >> separately? We'd then be interested to see how it can be used > within > > >> Brooklyn. Can you close this PR and let us know when/where you > > >> create that library." > > >> > > >> Like I said, that's for pretty much anyone but Alex. The difference is > > >> that Alex wrote the first version of our yaml/camp parsing and knows > it > > >> better than anyone else. That original code definitely deserves a > > re-write: > > >> it's become increasingly complicated as the supported yaml has > evolved. > > >> Alex has investigated different approaches and has come up with a way > > that > > >> could greatly improve that code, and be used in other places as well. > > Doing > > >> that in Brooklyn is simpler for him, because it can evolve in tandem > to > > >> satisfy requirements of Brooklyn. > > >> > > >> I therefore suggest we discuss YOML separately, rather than > > generalising. > > >> > > >> Aled > > >> > > >> > > >> On 03/05/2017 02:13, Alex Heneveld wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Aled, > > >>> > > >>> > *Light-weight Review* > > >>> > I agree with you - where PRs look sensible, low-risk and unit > tested > > >>> we should take more risk and > > >>> > merge them sooner (even if there's not been time for a thorough > > review > > >>> by the community). > > >>> > > >>> I'm saying something a little different: we should _try_ for a > > thorough > > >>> review of *all* PRs. Which I think is uncontroversial. > > >>> > > >>> > What should we do with a PR when we aren't able to review things in > > as > > >>> much depth as we'd like? > > >>> > > >>> This is the question I'm asking, to ensure we handle PR's in a good > > time > > >>> frame. To summarise, I'm suggesting we make more of an effort, and > we > > fall > > >>> back to an "eyeball test" a certain period of time (7 days max, less > if > > >>> it's simple?), triage the review to look at: > > >>> > > >>> * clearly helpful & not obviously wrong > > >>> * low-risk / doesn't break compatibility > > >>> * good test coverage (and passing) > > >>> * likely to be maintained > > >>> > > >>> If these can't be confirmed, the reviewer should say what they have > > >>> doubts about, maybe suggest what the contributor could do to help, or > > >>> appeal to other committers more familiar with an area. In any case > get > > a > > >>> discussion going. > > >>> > > >>> If these do seem confirmed, I still suggest we don't merge > immediately > > >>> in the absence of a thorough review, but ping specific committers > > likely to > > >>> be interested. If no thorough review after a few more days, _then_ > > merge. > > >>> > > >>> I'm not suggesting any heavyweight process, but just enough to put > > >>> healthy forces on us as reviewers. > > >>> > > >>> This is not a theoretical question, nor is it restricted to the YOML > > >>> PR. We're pretty good with most of our PRs and reviews but there are > > >>> plenty of examples where we've dropped the ball. Look at [1] which > is > > tiny > > >>> and tests-only and took nine days to get a review. Or [2] which yes > > >>> combines a few related-but-different things but is by no means a hard > > thing > > >>> to review. It would take far more time to split that up into 3 > > branches, > > >>> test those locally, then babysit each of those PR's than it would > take > > for > > >>> a reviewer to just get on with a review. It's been sitting there > for 2 > > >>> months and doesn't even have a comment. > > >>> > > >>> This is not a good state of affairs. Turning this discussion in to > > >>> guidelines about PR's misses the point. If there's any change to our > > >>> docs/process made as a result of this discussion I'd like to see the > > >>> eyeball test added to a review process discussion. > > >>> > > >>> Finally re YOML, there is an ML thread started when the issue was > > >>> raised. There was chatter beforehand but it wasn't an easy thing to > > >>> discuss until there was prototype code. The point is for 7 months > > there > > >>> have been no comments in any of these places, even after I've run a > > public > > >>> session explaining it and private sessions and the PR itself says how > > it > > >>> can be tested and how it is insulated from the rest of the code > > (Thomas I > > >>> think you missed that point). As there is an ML thread and an open > > issue, > > >>> either of which would be a fine place to comment, but no one is -- > the > > >>> suggestion of a new separate ML thread to solve the problem is > > bizarre. I > > >>> say this is _exactly_ the situation when we need guidelines for how > we > > >>> handle PR's that are not being reviewed in a timely way. > > >>> > > >>> Best > > >>> Alex > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/600 > > >>> [2] https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/575 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 02/05/2017 19:21, Aled Sage wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi Alex, > > >>>> > > >>>> Interesting question. A few initial thoughts: > > >>>> > > >>>> *YOML* > > >>>> YOML (PR #363) is an exceptional case - we should not use that as an > > >>>> example when discussing this meta-question. The PR is 12,000 lines > > >>>> (including comments/notes), and was not discussed on the mailing > list > > >>>> before it was submitted. I suggest we have a separate email thread > > >>>> specifically about merging that PR, as there are certainly very > useful > > >>>> things we'd get from YOML. > > >>>> > > >>>> *Small PRs* > > >>>> We should strongly encourage small focused PRs on a single thing, > > >>>> wherever possible. That will make review faster, easier and lower > > risk. For > > >>>> such PRs, we should strive for review+merge within days (7 days > being > > an > > >>>> upper bound in normal circumstances, hopefully). > > >>>> > > >>>> We can add some brief guidelines to this effect at > > >>>> http://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/how-to-contribute.html > > >>>> > > >>>> *Changing low-level Brooklyn* > > >>>> PRs that change low-level things in Brooklyn (e.g. changes to > > >>>> config-inheritance etc) deserve thorough review. They are high-risk > > as the > > >>>> unforeseen consequences of the changes can be very subtle, and break > > >>>> downstream blueprints that rely on old ways of doing things. > > >>>> > > >>>> *Light-weight Review* > > >>>> I agree with you - where PRs look sensible, low-risk and unit tested > > we > > >>>> should take more risk and merge them sooner (even if there's not > been > > time > > >>>> for a thorough review by the community). > > >>>> > > >>>> Aled > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 02/05/2017 15:50, Duncan Johnston Watt wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Alex > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This is probably covered already but I guess there needs to be an > > >>>>> impact > > >>>>> assessment (by submitter?) before something is waved through by > > >>>>> default. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Best > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Duncan > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 2 May 2017 at 06:52, Alex Heneveld < > > alex.henev...@cloudsoftcorp.com > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi Brooklyners- > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> As many of you know, my YOML PR #363 [1] has been open for a > while. > > >>>>>> This > > >>>>>> sets up a foundation for giving better documentation and feedback > > and > > >>>>>> hugely simplifying how we do our parsing. However it's a very big > > >>>>>> PR. I'm > > >>>>>> eager to have people spend some time using it and ideally > extending > > >>>>>> it -- > > >>>>>> but here I wanted to raise a meta-question: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> *W**hat should we do with a PR when we aren't able to review > things > > >>>>>> in as > > >>>>>> much depth as we'd like?* > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> One option -- call it (A) -- is to say if we can't review things > > >>>>>> thoroughly in a reasonable timeframe, we do a lighter review and > if > > >>>>>> the PR > > >>>>>> looks promising and safe we merge it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The other option -- call it (B) -- is to leave PRs open for as > long > > >>>>>> as it > > >>>>>> takes for us to do the complete review. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I think most people have been approaching this with a mindset of > > (B), > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>> while that's great for code quality and shared code understanding, > > if > > >>>>>> we > > >>>>>> can't deliver on that quickly, it's frankly anti-social. The > > >>>>>> contributor > > >>>>>> has to deal with merge conflicts (and the rudeness of his or her > > >>>>>> contribution being ignored), and Brooklyn loses velocity. My PR is > > an > > >>>>>> extreme example but many have been affected by slow reviews, and I > > >>>>>> think > > >>>>>> the expectation that reviews have to be so thorough is part of the > > >>>>>> problem: it even discourages reviewers, as if you're not an > expert > > >>>>>> in an > > >>>>>> area you probably don't feel qualified to review. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> We have good test coverage so product risk of (A) is small, and we > > >>>>>> have > > >>>>>> great coders so I've no worry about us being able to solve > problems > > >>>>>> that > > >>>>>> (A) might introduce. We should be encouraging reviewers to look > at > > >>>>>> any > > >>>>>> area, and we need to solve the problem of slow reviews. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> *I propose that the**standard we apply is that we quickly either > > >>>>>> merge PRs > > >>>>>> or identify what the contributor needs to resolve. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> *I'm all for thorough reviews and shared understanding, but if we > > >>>>>> can't do > > >>>>>> this quickly I suggest we are better to sacrifice those things > > rather > > >>>>>> than > > >>>>>> block contributions, stifle innovation, and discourage reviews by > > >>>>>> insisting > > >>>>>> on a standards that we struggle to sustain. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> As a general rule of thumb, maybe something like: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> (1) After 7 days of no activity on a PR we go with an "eyeball > > test"; > > >>>>>> unless the following statement is untrue we say: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> /I haven't done as much review as I'd like, but the code is > clearly > > >>>>>> helpful, not risky or obviously wrong or breaking compatibility, > it > > >>>>>> has > > >>>>>> good test coverage, and we can reasonably expect the contributor > or > > >>>>>> committers to maintain it. Leaving open a bit longer in case > > someone > > >>>>>> else > > >>>>>> wants to review more but if nothing further in the next few days, > > >>>>>> let's > > >>>>>> merge. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> /(If there are committers who are likely to be specifically > > >>>>>> interested, > > >>>>>> call them out as CC.) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> (2) After 3 more days, if no activity, merge it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> And we encourage _anyone_ to review anything. If the above > response > > >>>>>> is > > >>>>>> the baseline, everyone in our community is qualified to do it or > > >>>>>> better and > > >>>>>> we'll be grateful! > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Best > > >>>>>> Alex > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/363 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
