I for one would very much like to help with reviews. I don't have a lot of time this month, but next month should have more time. Best, -- C
> On Apr 10, 2023, at 10:56 PM, Dan Zou <zoud...@163.com> wrote: > > +1, thanks Julian for proposing this. From my observation, there are many > pending PRs in Calcite and only a few active committers, this puts a lot of > pressure on these committers. For example Julian have reviewed 34 PR in 2023 > Q1, it is an unimaginable number. I am very supportive of achieving a > mechanism to improve the review efficiency of PRs, and also I would like to > make contribution in reviewing PRs. > > Best, > Dan Zou > > > > > >> 2023年4月11日 01:56，Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> 写道： >> >> I don't enjoy reviewing and merging PRs. And every time I do, I feel >> like a sucker, because there are over a few dozen committers who are >> enjoying the project and not doing the work. (There is a small group >> of committers who regularly review and merge PRs. I don't know how >> they feel about the task, but I am immensely grateful.) >> >> I think I would review more PRs if I saw others doing the same. >> >> Can we figure out a fairer way to distribute the load? For release >> managers (approximately the same amount of work, but compressed into a >> few hours or days) we have successfully run a rota for several years. >> Could we do something similar with PRs? >> >> I propose the following. For each calendar month, there is a PR >> manager and 6 - 8 reviewers. The PR manager does not review PRs, but >> assigns them to reviewers, and politely reminds reviews to keep the PR >> moving. >> >> The PR manager's goals are: >> * every non-draft PR is reviewed within 3 days of submission, >> * every PR is merged within 3 days of being done; >> * rotate duties so that no reviewer is asked to review more than 4 >> PRs per month; >> * email a report at the end of the month; >> * work down the backlog of historic PRs if it's a slow month. >> >> The PR manager rotates every month. The reviewers can rotate if they >> wish, but I suspect most will stay in the pool for several months, >> because the reviewing load is not very heavy, and because they see >> others doing the work. >> >> Other notes: >> * Non-committers would be welcome to join the pool of reviews (and >> that would be a good way to earn the committer bit) and a committer >> could merge when the PR is approved. >> * If committers join the pool, that's a good way to earn PMC membership. >> * Committers who are not in the pool are welcome to review PRs and >> assign PRs to themselves (but expect to be nagged by the PR manager if >> you don't review in a timely manner). >> >> What do you think? Would you join this scheme if we introduced it? If >> you agree please +1; also happy to see revisions to this suggestion or >> other ideas to share the work. >> >> Julian >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
