Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

2022-07-01 Thread Anthony Baker 
Consensus on this thread is to move ahead with removing CODEOWNERS requirement 
from PR review.

Thanks,
Anthony


> On Jun 29, 2022, at 4:11 PM, Alexander Murmann  
> wrote:
> 
> ⚠ External Email
> 
> +1 to removing CODEOWNERS. It was a good idea, but isn’t working well, in 
> part due to the way GitHub doesn’t provide enough information to determine 
> who is actually needed for review.
> 
> From: Anthony Baker 
> Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 9:34 AM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org 
> Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
> ⚠ External Email
> 
> I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen 
> several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the 
> CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to 
> those most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been 
> problematic. The size, complexity, and interconnectedness of the code base 
> meant that many pull requests tagged not just one expert but just about EVERY 
> expert in the community. This is rather inefficient, to say the least.
> 
> I propose that we revert CODEOWNERS and return to the review-then-commit 
> model requiring at least one +1 vote from a committer. I see Owen has already 
> created a PR [1] for this change.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Anthony
> 
> [1] 
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7820data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7C79811d072fc74726126008da5a24ab05%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921410800473067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=WCbjKRcWfv%2B1iBgkg60xaE1dkBJz4q2RUm36aTBupVE%3Dreserved=0
> 
> 
>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 5:43 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
>> 
>> ⚠ External Email
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The following PRs:
>> 
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7323data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7C79811d072fc74726126008da5a24ab05%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921410800473067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=eWy%2BcIeCFPIKrmtf9ivd02HjsPiArqyo9D0UnYfwBHk%3Dreserved=0
>> 
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7C79811d072fc74726126008da5a24ab05%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921410800473067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=9Xhng%2F8o1cRW%2BOJ9g0UeL9Tshjh4B0yVXlRmxIV0wxk%3Dreserved=0
>> 
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7C79811d072fc74726126008da5a24ab05%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921410800473067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=2UjXX1hos4K0nK2D7tqg%2Flr1mBwMtGVZcvKj9QTAlEw%3Dreserved=0
>> 
>> are waiting for review for some time.
>> 
>> 
>> Could code owners review these PRs?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mario
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

2022-06-29 Thread Alexander Murmann 
+1 to removing CODEOWNERS. It was a good idea, but isn’t working well, in part 
due to the way GitHub doesn’t provide enough information to determine who is 
actually needed for review.

From: Anthony Baker 
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 9:34 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org 
Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
⚠ External Email

I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen 
several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the 
CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to those 
most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been problematic. 
The size, complexity, and interconnectedness of the code base meant that many 
pull requests tagged not just one expert but just about EVERY expert in the 
community. This is rather inefficient, to say the least.

I propose that we revert CODEOWNERS and return to the review-then-commit model 
requiring at least one +1 vote from a committer. I see Owen has already created 
a PR [1] for this change.

Thoughts?

Anthony

[1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7820data=05%7C01%7Camurmann%40vmware.com%7Cfb9fa517473e425fa37008da59ed3af8%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172681263350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=uZeV4f4aM8YZ2K%2FXvz0xRyRTYXY%2B0uORRuUHE%2FGbu0g%3Dreserved=0


> On Jun 28, 2022, at 5:43 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
>
> ⚠ External Email
>
> Hi,
>
> The following PRs:
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7323data=05%7C01%7Camurmann%40vmware.com%7Cfb9fa517473e425fa37008da59ed3af8%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172681263350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=WYcPhzswx2x1mn9XUZF0oTsFRC2vAJAqFDuyBKXBT34%3Dreserved=0
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749data=05%7C01%7Camurmann%40vmware.com%7Cfb9fa517473e425fa37008da59ed3af8%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172681263350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=p0UcyQGJdeMIuKYCWYg6eKBxxkrWDR5rlI6D9pVw7rI%3Dreserved=0
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664data=05%7C01%7Camurmann%40vmware.com%7Cfb9fa517473e425fa37008da59ed3af8%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172681263350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=yckAzLMFXHlrRs6sfEvCky61Lp6gW4EFWFQdMZdB9yg%3Dreserved=0
>
> are waiting for review for some time.
>
>
> Could code owners review these PRs?
>
> Thanks,
> Mario
>
> 
>
> ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

2022-06-29 Thread Dave Barnes 
+1 to Anthony's suggestion.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:59 AM Joris Melchior
 wrote:

> +1 to Anthony’s suggestion.
>
> From: Anthony Baker 
> Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 12:34 PM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org 
> Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
> ⚠ External Email
>
> I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve
> seen several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the
> CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to
> those most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been
> problematic. The size, complexity, and interconnectedness of the code base
> meant that many pull requests tagged not just one expert but just about
> EVERY expert in the community. This is rather inefficient, to say the least.
>
> I propose that we revert CODEOWNERS and return to the review-then-commit
> model requiring at least one +1 vote from a committer. I see Owen has
> already created a PR [1] for this change.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Anthony
>
> [1]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7820data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657046974%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=QLRDUSWYEQghr4uymf6ITo8ljqW93OicXeQMhCig9TU%3Dreserved=0
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2022, at 5:43 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
> >
> > ⚠ External Email
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The following PRs:
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7323data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=vOF5oEuamtm2SAteHVidt0z%2Fn2IwvmjhjHBYBDN%2BfYg%3Dreserved=0
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=5x%2Bb4zQndwuxCsIMZBbiIrClxKCH2FSQe%2FqxWoMTLAc%3Dreserved=0
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=RJwji25FKUPWNVuNkp7%2F9mkbtyNYa2bA84ymE9CxXE8%3Dreserved=0
> >
> > are waiting for review for some time.
> >
> >
> > Could code owners review these PRs?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mario
> >
> > 
> >
> > ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the
> organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
> the sender.
>

Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

2022-06-29 Thread Joris Melchior 
+1 to Anthony’s suggestion.

From: Anthony Baker 
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 12:34 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org 
Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
⚠ External Email

I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen 
several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the 
CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to those 
most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been problematic. 
The size, complexity, and interconnectedness of the code base meant that many 
pull requests tagged not just one expert but just about EVERY expert in the 
community. This is rather inefficient, to say the least.

I propose that we revert CODEOWNERS and return to the review-then-commit model 
requiring at least one +1 vote from a committer. I see Owen has already created 
a PR [1] for this change.

Thoughts?

Anthony

[1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7820data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657046974%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=QLRDUSWYEQghr4uymf6ITo8ljqW93OicXeQMhCig9TU%3Dreserved=0


> On Jun 28, 2022, at 5:43 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
>
> ⚠ External Email
>
> Hi,
>
> The following PRs:
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7323data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=vOF5oEuamtm2SAteHVidt0z%2Fn2IwvmjhjHBYBDN%2BfYg%3Dreserved=0
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=5x%2Bb4zQndwuxCsIMZBbiIrClxKCH2FSQe%2FqxWoMTLAc%3Dreserved=0
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=RJwji25FKUPWNVuNkp7%2F9mkbtyNYa2bA84ymE9CxXE8%3Dreserved=0
>
> are waiting for review for some time.
>
>
> Could code owners review these PRs?
>
> Thanks,
> Mario
>
> 
>
> ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

2022-06-29 Thread Jinmei Liao 
+1 to Anthony's suggestion


From: Donal Evans 
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:46 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org 
Subject: Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
⚠ External Email

+1 to Anthony's suggestion

I strongly supported the idea behind CODEOWNERS when it was originally 
implemented, but the reality of the process has been a lot more disruptive to 
smooth workflows than I anticipated, both as someone who's waiting for code 
review and as someone who gets tagged to review PRs that I may not actually 
have context for or expert-level understanding of.

From: Anthony Baker 
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:33 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org 
Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

⚠ External Email

I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen 
several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the 
CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to those 
most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been problematic. 
The size, complexity, and interconnectedness of the code base meant that many 
pull requests tagged not just one expert but just about EVERY expert in the 
community. This is rather inefficient, to say the least.

I propose that we revert CODEOWNERS and return to the review-then-commit model 
requiring at least one +1 vote from a committer. I see Owen has already created 
a PR [1] for this change.

Thoughts?

Anthony

[1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7820data=05%7C01%7Cjiliao%40vmware.com%7C16e46d7a43404f1d1bda08da59f74254%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921215792894485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=e4Pc0%2F%2BPRKodzJ6Qv25CvhMNsTQ3TYnCJX0aETP5ivY%3Dreserved=0


> On Jun 28, 2022, at 5:43 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
>
> ⚠ External Email
>
> Hi,
>
> The following PRs:
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7323data=05%7C01%7Cjiliao%40vmware.com%7C16e46d7a43404f1d1bda08da59f74254%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921215792894485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=eoBImn6KCn99owy1w7vVR81hLTbKPuozaoJTrIha5rI%3Dreserved=0
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749data=05%7C01%7Cjiliao%40vmware.com%7C16e46d7a43404f1d1bda08da59f74254%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921215792894485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=vXlcq29UTXZAfg96Z9lSRbW97YlwR5TBJcscvHRDQgI%3Dreserved=0
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664data=05%7C01%7Cjiliao%40vmware.com%7C16e46d7a43404f1d1bda08da59f74254%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921215792894485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=lELh%2FFiTw2ZwvC8rdlfx%2BiWcOQkdVr6ZCV0RU2iEFR0%3Dreserved=0
>
> are waiting for review for some time.
>
>
> Could code owners review these PRs?
>
> Thanks,
> Mario
>
> 
>
> ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

2022-06-29 Thread Donal Evans 
+1 to Anthony's suggestion

I strongly supported the idea behind CODEOWNERS when it was originally 
implemented, but the reality of the process has been a lot more disruptive to 
smooth workflows than I anticipated, both as someone who's waiting for code 
review and as someone who gets tagged to review PRs that I may not actually 
have context for or expert-level understanding of.

From: Anthony Baker 
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:33 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org 
Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

⚠ External Email

I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen 
several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the 
CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to those 
most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been problematic. 
The size, complexity, and interconnectedness of the code base meant that many 
pull requests tagged not just one expert but just about EVERY expert in the 
community. This is rather inefficient, to say the least.

I propose that we revert CODEOWNERS and return to the review-then-commit model 
requiring at least one +1 vote from a committer. I see Owen has already created 
a PR [1] for this change.

Thoughts?

Anthony

[1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7820data=05%7C01%7Cdoevans%40vmware.com%7Cdbae452fb50648fb880208da59ed3a82%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172683584236%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=FWL%2Fl5rYbTtIj5mLQXfjNfY2bPcS%2BLTSutwt158sn08%3Dreserved=0


> On Jun 28, 2022, at 5:43 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
>
> ⚠ External Email
>
> Hi,
>
> The following PRs:
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7323data=05%7C01%7Cdoevans%40vmware.com%7Cdbae452fb50648fb880208da59ed3a82%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172683584236%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=V6zOdknmNNf7zDbvy2BS1KFf9JIcdQK7y5qXDDf0aRA%3Dreserved=0
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749data=05%7C01%7Cdoevans%40vmware.com%7Cdbae452fb50648fb880208da59ed3a82%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172683584236%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=VI7lV862yajOMm9aeI0dsDfgpLs1Npor79MoNHR3DDQ%3Dreserved=0
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664data=05%7C01%7Cdoevans%40vmware.com%7Cdbae452fb50648fb880208da59ed3a82%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172683584236%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=tcgtMT1RcidM3%2B45%2FEqeXSMgvDl0OmUKn8YMNDk9TVA%3Dreserved=0
>
> are waiting for review for some time.
>
>
> Could code owners review these PRs?
>
> Thanks,
> Mario
>
> 
>
> ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

2022-06-29 Thread Owen Nichols 
+1

In the case where someone isn’t sure who might be good to request a review 
from, GitHub seems to now have a reviewer-recommendation feature based on who 
has recently touched the files in the PR.  Non-committers can always email the 
dev list if help is needed.

From: Patrick Johnson 
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 9:45 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org 
Subject: Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
⚠ External Email

+1 for getting rid of CODEOWNERS.

> On Jun 29, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
>
> ⚠ External Email
>
> I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen 
> several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the 
> CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to 
> those most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been 
> problematic. The size, complexity, and interconnectedness of the code base 
> meant that many pull requests tagged not just one expert but just about EVERY 
> expert in the community. This is rather inefficient, to say the least.
>
> I propose that we revert CODEOWNERS and return to the review-then-commit 
> model requiring at least one +1 vote from a committer. I see Owen has already 
> created a PR [1] for this change.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Anthony
>
> [1] 
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7820data=05%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cb5a2c412552c4149154f08da59eed142%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921179501621811%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=uqMJrZPsXE7GcJK2EwEEiul%2FhGCPLmyfUKC2x%2FhiStU%3Dreserved=0
>
>
>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 5:43 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
>>
>> ⚠ External Email
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The following PRs:
>>
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7323data=05%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cb5a2c412552c4149154f08da59eed142%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921179501778038%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Aqjmm0EybFdmNlmC37nHgmCT50f%2B3NFcpOrtLEXBFwo%3Dreserved=0
>>
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749data=05%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cb5a2c412552c4149154f08da59eed142%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921179501778038%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=1hlNbZin%2Btdw3cBr484dIRPRCmoYaVBbKRYcoiKLs1U%3Dreserved=0
>>
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664data=05%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cb5a2c412552c4149154f08da59eed142%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921179501778038%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=ouqA09rGyTcgandMR2sS7%2BK901NO0tBAYR32aaAl5uI%3Dreserved=0
>>
>> are waiting for review for some time.
>>
>>
>> Could code owners review these PRs?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mario
>>
>> 
>>
>> ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
>

Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

2022-06-29 Thread Patrick Johnson 
+1 for getting rid of CODEOWNERS.

> On Jun 29, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
> 
> ⚠ External Email
> 
> I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen 
> several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the 
> CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to 
> those most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been 
> problematic. The size, complexity, and interconnectedness of the code base 
> meant that many pull requests tagged not just one expert but just about EVERY 
> expert in the community. This is rather inefficient, to say the least.
> 
> I propose that we revert CODEOWNERS and return to the review-then-commit 
> model requiring at least one +1 vote from a committer. I see Owen has already 
> created a PR [1] for this change.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Anthony
> 
> [1] 
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7820data=05%7C01%7Cjpatrick%40vmware.com%7Cef39bb9a4e794fba73cd08da59ed3d9a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172911084617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=PRAvK0HR0cU5Tg59KVD%2BIjnq8PAsaKfjX8%2BG%2FHeDnAw%3Dreserved=0
> 
> 
>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 5:43 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
>> 
>> ⚠ External Email
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The following PRs:
>> 
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7323data=05%7C01%7Cjpatrick%40vmware.com%7Cef39bb9a4e794fba73cd08da59ed3d9a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172911084617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Tvz9IRs642RD89jY41htcIxuwsm1i4e90BJdmsLBYnI%3Dreserved=0
>> 
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749data=05%7C01%7Cjpatrick%40vmware.com%7Cef39bb9a4e794fba73cd08da59ed3d9a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172911084617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=nv2NsBKWaTDZhe%2BAfiQfM5JslaQDl48Fbk0OrscDWbQ%3Dreserved=0
>> 
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664data=05%7C01%7Cjpatrick%40vmware.com%7Cef39bb9a4e794fba73cd08da59ed3d9a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172911084617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=k9d8Mxjv3llSWWcyL06xjQYDV%2FTXbh393Yk2%2F8%2BOyWU%3Dreserved=0
>> 
>> are waiting for review for some time.
>> 
>> 
>> Could code owners review these PRs?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mario
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
>

CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

2022-06-29 Thread Anthony Baker 
I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen 
several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the 
CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to those 
most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been problematic. 
The size, complexity, and interconnectedness of the code base meant that many 
pull requests tagged not just one expert but just about EVERY expert in the 
community. This is rather inefficient, to say the least.

I propose that we revert CODEOWNERS and return to the review-then-commit model 
requiring at least one +1 vote from a committer. I see Owen has already created 
a PR [1] for this change.

Thoughts?

Anthony

[1] https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/7820


> On Jun 28, 2022, at 5:43 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
> 
> ⚠ External Email
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The following PRs:
> 
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7323data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7Cac199366a0df4d162f9c08da5903c883%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637920170037751522%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=83n%2BAmPDOOZbvqp5RYaW06mFU2Cy0azhyhWoIXnFlGE%3Dreserved=0
> 
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7Cac199366a0df4d162f9c08da5903c883%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637920170037751522%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=tllDC%2Fs0wdCC5Q49tl%2ByQXP%2FzA%2BQT%2B%2Bd2XknHDYBgXk%3Dreserved=0
> 
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7Cac199366a0df4d162f9c08da5903c883%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637920170037751522%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=JBEIgFD59ZP3JtTQ4mIPFHWKUTjFeskfxvSCkW9momw%3Dreserved=0
> 
> are waiting for review for some time.
> 
> 
> Could code owners review these PRs?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mario
> 
> 
> 
> ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Pending PR reviews

2022-06-28 Thread Mario Ivanac 
Hi,

The following PRs:

https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/7323

https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/7749

https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/7664

are waiting for review for some time.


Could code owners review these PRs?

Thanks,
Mario

PR reviews

2020-02-25 Thread Mario Ivanac 
Hi geode dev,

please could someone review PRs:


  *   https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4711

  *   https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4719

Thanks,
Mario

Re: Odg: Need PR reviews

2019-08-27 Thread Mark Hanson 
Hi Jake and Blake,

Could you take a look at this? I will test it as well.

Thanks,
Mark

> On Aug 27, 2019, at 9:15 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> just to remind you.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Šalje: Mario Ivanac 
> Poslano: 26. kolovoza 2019. 11:37
> Prima: dev@geode.apache.org 
> Predmet: Need PR reviews
> 
> Hi Geode dev,
> 
> we need review for following PRs:
> 
> Jira ticket:
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7086>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7086
> PR:
> https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/510
> 
> Jira ticket: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7086>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7039
> PR:
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3955
> 
> Thanks,
> Mario

Odg: Need PR reviews

2019-08-27 Thread Mario Ivanac 
Hi,

just to remind you.

Thanks.

Šalje: Mario Ivanac 
Poslano: 26. kolovoza 2019. 11:37
Prima: dev@geode.apache.org 
Predmet: Need PR reviews

Hi Geode dev,

we need review for following PRs:

Jira ticket:
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7086>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7086
PR:
https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/510

Jira ticket: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7086>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7039
PR:
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3955

Thanks,
Mario

Need PR reviews

2019-08-26 Thread Mario Ivanac 
Hi Geode dev,

we need review for following PRs:

Jira ticket:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7086
PR:
https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/510

Jira ticket: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7039
PR:
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3955

Thanks,
Mario

PR Reviews

2019-07-30 Thread Aaron Lindsey 
Would anyone be able to review and/or merge the following 2 PRs?
GEODE-6298: Fix flaky test scanMovesRecentlyUsedNodeToTail 

GEODE-7003: Fix flaky tests in GemFireTransactionDataSourceIntegrationTest 


Thanks,
Aaron

Re: PR reviews

2019-07-30 Thread Kirk Lund 
Is there anyone who knows enough about security and JMX to review PR #3697
(GEODE-6717 NotAuthorizedException during JMX scraping)? Jinmei is out on
PTO until mid next week.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 1:51 AM Mario Kevo  wrote:

> Hi Geode dev,
>
> We need some PR reviewers on the following PRs. Some of these just need
> to be *re*-reviewed.
>
> GEODE-6998 NPE during update of index due to GII
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3834
>
> GEODE-6954 GatewaySenderMXBean wrongly reports state
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3826
>
> GEODE-6717 NotAuthorizedException during JMX scraping
>
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3697
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Mario
>

Re: PR reviews

2019-07-29 Thread Kirk Lund 
I'll add my review later today. Thanks for the reminder!

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 1:51 AM Mario Kevo  wrote:

> Hi Geode dev,
>
> We need some PR reviewers on the following PRs. Some of these just need
> to be *re*-reviewed.
>
> GEODE-6998 NPE during update of index due to GII
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3834
>
> GEODE-6954 GatewaySenderMXBean wrongly reports state
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3826
>
> GEODE-6717 NotAuthorizedException during JMX scraping
>
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3697
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Mario
>

PR reviews

2019-07-29 Thread Mario Kevo 
Hi Geode dev,

We need some PR reviewers on the following PRs. Some of these just need
to be *re*-reviewed.

GEODE-6998 NPE during update of index due to GII
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3834

GEODE-6954 GatewaySenderMXBean wrongly reports state
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3826

GEODE-6717 NotAuthorizedException during JMX scraping

https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3697


Thanks in advance,
Mario

Re: Proposal: For PR reviews and change requests can we have a 7 day turn around on re-reviews?

2019-07-09 Thread Joris Melchior 
+1 on the assignee idea but understand Mark's concerns with inundating
certain people. Is there a way that we can manage the load for reviewers?

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:17 PM Mark Hanson  wrote:

> In Github there is a request re-review option. I just learned more about
> that today.
> I think that people should probably be using that option to interact with
> reviewers.
> I do like the assignee idea. I worry that things might pile up on certain
> people,
> but that already kind of happening because certain people are doing more
> reviews.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Benjamin Ross  wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I think having an assignee would help set better expectations between
> > committer and reviewer.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM Dan Smith  wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> What do you think about assigning someone to each PR to make sure it
> gets
> >> through the process? We don't currently seem to be using github's
> >> "assignee" field. Committers can make themselves the assignee, but for
> >> contributors we could assign a committer who will make sure the PR gets
> >> reviewed and merged in a timely fashion.
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:34 AM Mark Hanson  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> TL;DR
> >>>
> >>> Can we have a norm( preferred, but not required ) of providing feedback
> >>> within seven days of the last checkin to a PR?
> >>>
> >>> Long version
> >>>
> >>> I have just spent a bit of time reviewing PRs that have been open for a
> >>> while and sent some emails to reviewers of the ones that are open the
> >>> longest. In my humble opinion, it would be very nice if we could close
> >> out
> >>> some of the older PRs where the requester has made changes to, but
> >>> reviewers have not re-reviewed. An ideal norm would seem to be 7 days.
> >> One
> >>> might notice that I have a PR that I requested a change on, that I have
> >> not
> >>> provided feedback on, so I am in the same boat...
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Mark
> >>
>
>

-- 
*Joris Melchior *
CF Engineering
Pivotal Toronto
416 877 5427

“Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*

Re: Proposal: For PR reviews and change requests can we have a 7 day turn around on re-reviews?

2019-07-09 Thread Mark Hanson 
In Github there is a request re-review option. I just learned more about that 
today. 
I think that people should probably be using that option to interact with 
reviewers. 
I do like the assignee idea. I worry that things might pile up on certain 
people, 
but that already kind of happening because certain people are doing more 
reviews.

Thanks,
Mark


> On Jul 9, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Benjamin Ross  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> I think having an assignee would help set better expectations between
> committer and reviewer.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM Dan Smith  wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> What do you think about assigning someone to each PR to make sure it gets
>> through the process? We don't currently seem to be using github's
>> "assignee" field. Committers can make themselves the assignee, but for
>> contributors we could assign a committer who will make sure the PR gets
>> reviewed and merged in a timely fashion.
>> 
>> -Dan
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:34 AM Mark Hanson  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> TL;DR
>>> 
>>> Can we have a norm( preferred, but not required ) of providing feedback
>>> within seven days of the last checkin to a PR?
>>> 
>>> Long version
>>> 
>>> I have just spent a bit of time reviewing PRs that have been open for a
>>> while and sent some emails to reviewers of the ones that are open the
>>> longest. In my humble opinion, it would be very nice if we could close
>> out
>>> some of the older PRs where the requester has made changes to, but
>>> reviewers have not re-reviewed. An ideal norm would seem to be 7 days.
>> One
>>> might notice that I have a PR that I requested a change on, that I have
>> not
>>> provided feedback on, so I am in the same boat...
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark
>>

Re: Proposal: For PR reviews and change requests can we have a 7 day turn around on re-reviews?

2019-07-09 Thread Benjamin Ross 
+1

I think having an assignee would help set better expectations between
committer and reviewer.

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM Dan Smith  wrote:

> +1
>
> What do you think about assigning someone to each PR to make sure it gets
> through the process? We don't currently seem to be using github's
> "assignee" field. Committers can make themselves the assignee, but for
> contributors we could assign a committer who will make sure the PR gets
> reviewed and merged in a timely fashion.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:34 AM Mark Hanson  wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > TL;DR
> >
> > Can we have a norm( preferred, but not required ) of providing feedback
> > within seven days of the last checkin to a PR?
> >
> > Long version
> >
> > I have just spent a bit of time reviewing PRs that have been open for a
> > while and sent some emails to reviewers of the ones that are open the
> > longest. In my humble opinion, it would be very nice if we could close
> out
> > some of the older PRs where the requester has made changes to, but
> > reviewers have not re-reviewed. An ideal norm would seem to be 7 days.
> One
> > might notice that I have a PR that I requested a change on, that I have
> not
> > provided feedback on, so I am in the same boat...
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark
>

Re: Proposal: For PR reviews and change requests can we have a 7 day turn around on re-reviews?

2019-07-09 Thread Dan Smith 
+1

What do you think about assigning someone to each PR to make sure it gets
through the process? We don't currently seem to be using github's
"assignee" field. Committers can make themselves the assignee, but for
contributors we could assign a committer who will make sure the PR gets
reviewed and merged in a timely fashion.

-Dan

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:34 AM Mark Hanson  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> TL;DR
>
> Can we have a norm( preferred, but not required ) of providing feedback
> within seven days of the last checkin to a PR?
>
> Long version
>
> I have just spent a bit of time reviewing PRs that have been open for a
> while and sent some emails to reviewers of the ones that are open the
> longest. In my humble opinion, it would be very nice if we could close out
> some of the older PRs where the requester has made changes to, but
> reviewers have not re-reviewed. An ideal norm would seem to be 7 days. One
> might notice that I have a PR that I requested a change on, that I have not
> provided feedback on, so I am in the same boat...
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark

Re: Proposal: For PR reviews and change requests can we have a 7 day turn around on re-reviews?

2019-07-09 Thread Joris Melchior 
+1 I think it will help keep people engaged. It's no fun when your PR is
left to hang and might discourage infrequent/new contributors.

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:34 PM Mark Hanson  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> TL;DR
>
> Can we have a norm( preferred, but not required ) of providing feedback
> within seven days of the last checkin to a PR?
>
> Long version
>
> I have just spent a bit of time reviewing PRs that have been open for a
> while and sent some emails to reviewers of the ones that are open the
> longest. In my humble opinion, it would be very nice if we could close out
> some of the older PRs where the requester has made changes to, but
> reviewers have not re-reviewed. An ideal norm would seem to be 7 days. One
> might notice that I have a PR that I requested a change on, that I have not
> provided feedback on, so I am in the same boat...
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark



-- 
*Joris Melchior *
CF Engineering
Pivotal Toronto
416 877 5427

“Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*

Proposal: For PR reviews and change requests can we have a 7 day turn around on re-reviews?

2019-07-09 Thread Mark Hanson 
Hi All,

TL;DR

Can we have a norm( preferred, but not required ) of providing feedback within 
seven days of the last checkin to a PR?

Long version

I have just spent a bit of time reviewing PRs that have been open for a while 
and sent some emails to reviewers of the ones that are open the longest. In my 
humble opinion, it would be very nice if we could close out some of the older 
PRs where the requester has made changes to, but reviewers have not 
re-reviewed. An ideal norm would seem to be 7 days. One might notice that I 
have a PR that I requested a change on, that I have not provided feedback on, 
so I am in the same boat...

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark