This is the picture: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/89049/53882383-7fda9380-4016-11e9-877d-10cdc00bdfbd.png
Speaking about feature requests, priorities and time-spend: My plan was to now work on introducing a new label category for the components. This should get us a lot better overview over the per-component status/health of pull requests. On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 12:58 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: > The image didn't go through. > > I would keep it as is; imo there are significantly more important things > that I'd like Robert to spend time on. (literally everything in the > Feature requests section) > > If we want to better distinguish new PRs I would suggest to either a) > introduce a dedicated "New" label or b) not attach any label by default, > and only attach the description label if someone has > approved/disapproved it. > > On 06.03.2019 12:37, Robert Metzger wrote: > > Hey Kurt, > > thanks a lot for this idea. > > > > My reasoning behind using just one color is the following: I wanted to > > use one color per category of labels. > > So when we are introducing labels for components, that it'll look like > > this: > > > > image.png > > > > But we could of course also go with color families per category. So > > "review" is green colors, "component" is red colors and so on. > > > > If nobody objects (or agrees) with me, I'll change the colors soon. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:51 AM Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com > > <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi Dev, > > > > I've been using the flinkbot and the label for a couple days, it > > worked > > really well! I have a minor suggestion, can we > > use different colors for different labels? We don't need to have > > different > > colors for every label, but only to distinguish whether > > someone had review the PR. > > For example, "review=description?" is the initial default label, > > and it may > > indicate that no reviewer has been try to review it. > > > > For "review=architecture?", "review=consensus?", > > "review=quality?", they > > indicate that at least someone has try to review it and > > approved something. It sounds like the review is in progress. > > > > For "review=approved ✅", it indicates the review is finished. > > > > So i think 3 colors is enough, it tell committers whether the > > review has > > not started yes, or in progress, or is finished. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Best, > > Kurt > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:50 PM Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org > > <mailto:rmetz...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > > GitHub has two methods for authentication with the APIs: > > > a) using an account's oauth token > > > b) using the GitHub Apps API > > > > > > Most of the libraries for the GH API use a), so does Flinkbot. > > The problem > > > with a) is that it does not allow for fine-grained access > > control, and > > > Infra does not want to give Flinkbot "write" access to > > "apache/flink". > > > That's why I need to rewrite parts of the bot to support b), > > which allows > > > to give access only a repo's metadata, but not the code itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:42 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org > > <mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > > > > It would be good to encourage participation of non-committers > > in the > > > review > > > > process, so +1 for allowing everyone to operate the bot. > > > > > > > > Github approval will show a green checkmark for committer > approval > > > > (assuming accounts were linked via gitbox) - that should provide > > > sufficient > > > > orientation? > > > > > > > > I just noticed that flinkbot seems to act as Robert when it > > comes to > > > label > > > > management? I think that is confusing (besides earning Robert > > a lot of > > > > extra github notification mail thanks to participation on > > every PR :) > > > > > > > > Overall flinkbot is very useful, thanks for all the work on > > it! I heard > > > > positive feedback from other contributors, I think they see their > > > > contributions are better received now. > > > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:38 AM Robert Metzger > > <rmetz...@apache.org <mailto:rmetz...@apache.org>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I will update labels only based on committer's approvals (for > > > > everything), > > > > > I think that's cleaner. > > > > > > > > > > We can always revisit this. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:31 PM Chesnay Schepler > > <ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Fore code-quality/description I agree, but consensus and > > the final > > > > > > approval should require a committer IMO. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27.02.2019 15:08, Robert Metzger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not put any restrictions on who can communicate with > > the bot! > > > > > > But since there is currently no way of overriding > > somebody's approval > > > > for > > > > > > something, this can easily lead to such a situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > My thinking was that a committer still needs to manually > > check who > > > > > > approved a pull request, and I wanted to be open for > > non-committers > > > to > > > > > > participate in the review process. > > > > > > WIth the labels in place, this can easily send the wrong > > message. > > > > > > > > > > > > What should we do? > > > > > > A) we restrict sending commands to the bot to committers? > > > > > > B) only approvals from committers matter for applying labels? > > > > > > C) we allow committers to override approvals > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm leaning towards B, as it encourages non-committers to > > > participate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:01 PM Chesnay Schepler > > <ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Just noticed that _anyone_ can approve a PR now, see > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/7801. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Not sure about the solution, but as it stands it is > > rather trivial > > > to > > > > > >> nuke the review process of the entire project. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 13.02.2019 10:29, Robert Metzger wrote: > > > > > >> > Hey all, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > the flinkbot has been active for a week now, and I hope > the > > > initial > > > > > >> hiccups > > > > > >> > have been resolved :) > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I wanted to start this as a permanent thread to discuss > > problems > > > and > > > > > >> > improvements with the bot. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > *So please post here if you have questions, problems or > > ideas how > > > to > > > > > >> > improve it!* > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
