It looks like there are at least 10 new processors and services in the backlog, and quite a few modifications to existing ones.
Something I think would really help here is to expand the scope of requirements for submitting a new processor for code review to include: 1. docker-compose file that sets up a complete development environment w/ appropriate port mappings that just work when used with NiFi running outside of Docker on the reviewer's machine. 2. A sample flow, a really KISS example w/ GenerateFlowFile or something that spits out a query or sample that can let the reviewer really see the submitter's idea of what the input should look like. Whether those are stored on a Wiki or in the Git repo doesn't really matter. I think submitting those artifacts will really reduce the burden of quickly going from "LGTM, JUnits seem to run" to "OK, I see it actually running as expected." On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:38 AM, James Wing <jvw...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a great idea, Mark, thanks for proposing it. 30 days after last > review comment seems like a good, enforceable standard. > > James > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > All, > > > > We do from time to time go through the backlog of PR's that need to be > > reviewed and > > start a "cleansing" process, closing out any old PR's that appear to have > > stalled out. > > When we do this, though, we typically will start sending out e-mails > > asking if there are > > any stalled PR's that we shouldn't close and start trying to decipher > > which ones are okay > > to close out and which ones are not. This puts quite an onus on the > > committer who is > > trying to clean this up. It also can result in having a large number of > > outstanding Pull Requests, > > which I believe makes the community look bad because it gives the > > appearance that we are > > not doing a good job of being responsive to Pull Requests that are > > submitted. > > > > I would like to propose that we set a new "standard" that is: if we have > > any Pull Request > > that has been stalled (and by "stalled" I mean a committer has reviewed > > the PR and did > > not merge but asked for clarifications or modifications and the > > contributor has not pushed > > any new commit or responded to the comments) for at least 30 days, that > we > > go ahead > > and close the Pull Request (after commenting on the PR that it is being > > closed due to a lack > > of activity and that the contributor is more than welcome to open a new > PR > > if necessary). > > > > I feel like this gives contributors enough time to address concerns and > it > > is simple enough > > to create a new Pull Request if the need arises. Alternatively, if the > > contributor realizes that > > they need more time, they can simply comment on the PR that they are > still > > interested in > > working on it but just need more time, and the simple act of commenting > > will mean that the > > PR is no longer stalled, as defined above. > > > > Any thoughts on such a proposal? Any better alternatives that people have > > in mind? > > > > Thanks > > -Mark >
