Thanks for bringing this issue up. I think it's an important issue for the ZooKeeper community.
The fundamental issue here is that we don't have enough active code reviewers and committers, which limits the throughput of the code reviews, since a patch has to be reviewed and approved by at least one committer to land. With this constraint the SLA is likely not going to work, unless we grow the community by increasing code reviewers and committers. To improve the current situation, my thoughts are: * Any developers here should participate code reviews as both reviewer and reviewee. You don't need be a committer to do code reviews. * Review other people's patch. If you help out, others will be more willing to do the same for you. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you should return the favor to for someone else. * Ping the dev list on your patch. If it's urgent, provide reasons on why and then ping dev list every couple of days. If it's not urgent, ping dev list every one or two weeks. * Ping individual developers directly and / or privately for escalation. It's less likely such ping will be ignored. On growing new committer side, PMCs are actively working on bringing new blood who demonstrates passion and effort on helping out patch reviews, among other contributions. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Dan Benediktson <dbenedikt...@twitter.com. invalid> wrote: > Hi there, > > Does the Zookeeper project have any formal process for ensuring submitted > patches get reviewed and subsequently committed? > > About a week ago I again submitted a patch for > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2471. This is something > like the third time I've submitted a patch to Apache Zookeeper over the > past year, and none of them has ever been reviewed. While they have all > fixed real bugs we've seen in production while running Zookeeper, I have > never urgently needed them to be committed because we maintain a fork where > we have already taken the bug fixes we need, so I have been inclined to not > make a nuisance of myself and let the Zookeeper PMC decide the best course > of action, but this is honestly somewhat frustrating. I would much rather > run Apache Zookeeper than run a private fork of it, but given the > experience so far in pushing our patches upstream and the sheer number and > scope of patches we have, this is a pretty daunting thought right now. > > I realize this is a volunteer operation and that we all have day jobs, > but I feel like this situation needs some improvement. Would it be possible > for the committers to set up some sort of regular review cadence and > provide some sort of loose expected SLA for reviewing, and assuming review > is approved, subsequently committing, submitted patches? To be clear, I > don't want to push a lot of work or strict timelines or anything: like I > said, I realize this is a volunteer project and that we're all quite busy. > But if we could even get something like a 1-month intended SLA for > reviewing a submitted patch, and then a 1-month intended SLA for committing > after a patch was accepted in review, I think it would be hugely beneficial > for contributors. > > Thanks, > Dan > -- Cheers Michael.
