Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
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%2F7820&data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7C79811d072fc74726126008da5a24ab05%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921410800473067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WCbjKRcWfv%2B1iBgkg60xaE1dkBJz4q2RUm36aTBupVE%3D&reserved=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%2F7323&data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7C79811d072fc74726126008da5a24ab05%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921410800473067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eWy%2BcIeCFPIKrmtf9ivd02HjsPiArqyo9D0UnYfwBHk%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749&data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7C79811d072fc74726126008da5a24ab05%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921410800473067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9Xhng%2F8o1cRW%2BOJ9g0UeL9Tshjh4B0yVXlRmxIV0wxk%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664&data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7C79811d072fc74726126008da5a24ab05%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921410800473067%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2UjXX1hos4K0nK2D7tqg%2Flr1mBwMtGVZcvKj9QTAlEw%3D&reserved=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)
+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%2F7820&data=05%7C01%7Camurmann%40vmware.com%7Cfb9fa517473e425fa37008da59ed3af8%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172681263350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uZeV4f4aM8YZ2K%2FXvz0xRyRTYXY%2B0uORRuUHE%2FGbu0g%3D&reserved=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%2F7323&data=05%7C01%7Camurmann%40vmware.com%7Cfb9fa517473e425fa37008da59ed3af8%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172681263350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WYcPhzswx2x1mn9XUZF0oTsFRC2vAJAqFDuyBKXBT34%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749&data=05%7C01%7Camurmann%40vmware.com%7Cfb9fa517473e425fa37008da59ed3af8%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172681263350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p0UcyQGJdeMIuKYCWYg6eKBxxkrWDR5rlI6D9pVw7rI%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664&data=05%7C01%7Camurmann%40vmware.com%7Cfb9fa517473e425fa37008da59ed3af8%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172681263350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yckAzLMFXHlrRs6sfEvCky61Lp6gW4EFWFQdMZdB9yg%3D&reserved=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)
+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%2F7820&data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657046974%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QLRDUSWYEQghr4uymf6ITo8ljqW93OicXeQMhCig9TU%3D&reserved=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%2F7323&data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vOF5oEuamtm2SAteHVidt0z%2Fn2IwvmjhjHBYBDN%2BfYg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749&data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5x%2Bb4zQndwuxCsIMZBbiIrClxKCH2FSQe%2FqxWoMTLAc%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664&data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RJwji25FKUPWNVuNkp7%2F9mkbtyNYa2bA84ymE9CxXE8%3D&reserved=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)
+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%2F7820&data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657046974%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QLRDUSWYEQghr4uymf6ITo8ljqW93OicXeQMhCig9TU%3D&reserved=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%2F7323&data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vOF5oEuamtm2SAteHVidt0z%2Fn2IwvmjhjHBYBDN%2BfYg%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749&data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5x%2Bb4zQndwuxCsIMZBbiIrClxKCH2FSQe%2FqxWoMTLAc%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664&data=05%7C01%7Cjmelchior%40vmware.com%7C52c8574bba824aa8550908da59ed395e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172657203211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RJwji25FKUPWNVuNkp7%2F9mkbtyNYa2bA84ymE9CxXE8%3D&reserved=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)
+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%2F7820&data=05%7C01%7Cjiliao%40vmware.com%7C16e46d7a43404f1d1bda08da59f74254%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921215792894485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e4Pc0%2F%2BPRKodzJ6Qv25CvhMNsTQ3TYnCJX0aETP5ivY%3D&reserved=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%2F7323&data=05%7C01%7Cjiliao%40vmware.com%7C16e46d7a43404f1d1bda08da59f74254%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921215792894485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eoBImn6KCn99owy1w7vVR81hLTbKPuozaoJTrIha5rI%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749&data=05%7C01%7Cjiliao%40vmware.com%7C16e46d7a43404f1d1bda08da59f74254%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921215792894485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vXlcq29UTXZAfg96Z9lSRbW97YlwR5TBJcscvHRDQgI%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664&data=05%7C01%7Cjiliao%40vmware.com%7C16e46d7a43404f1d1bda08da59f74254%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921215792894485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lELh%2FFiTw2ZwvC8rdlfx%2BiWcOQkdVr6ZCV0RU2iEFR0%3D&reserved=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)
+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%2F7820&data=05%7C01%7Cdoevans%40vmware.com%7Cdbae452fb50648fb880208da59ed3a82%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172683584236%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FWL%2Fl5rYbTtIj5mLQXfjNfY2bPcS%2BLTSutwt158sn08%3D&reserved=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%2F7323&data=05%7C01%7Cdoevans%40vmware.com%7Cdbae452fb50648fb880208da59ed3a82%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172683584236%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=V6zOdknmNNf7zDbvy2BS1KFf9JIcdQK7y5qXDDf0aRA%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749&data=05%7C01%7Cdoevans%40vmware.com%7Cdbae452fb50648fb880208da59ed3a82%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172683584236%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VI7lV862yajOMm9aeI0dsDfgpLs1Npor79MoNHR3DDQ%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664&data=05%7C01%7Cdoevans%40vmware.com%7Cdbae452fb50648fb880208da59ed3a82%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172683584236%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tcgtMT1RcidM3%2B45%2FEqeXSMgvDl0OmUKn8YMNDk9TVA%3D&reserved=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)
+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%2F7820&data=05%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cb5a2c412552c4149154f08da59eed142%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921179501621811%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uqMJrZPsXE7GcJK2EwEEiul%2FhGCPLmyfUKC2x%2FhiStU%3D&reserved=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%2F7323&data=05%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cb5a2c412552c4149154f08da59eed142%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921179501778038%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Aqjmm0EybFdmNlmC37nHgmCT50f%2B3NFcpOrtLEXBFwo%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749&data=05%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cb5a2c412552c4149154f08da59eed142%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921179501778038%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1hlNbZin%2Btdw3cBr484dIRPRCmoYaVBbKRYcoiKLs1U%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664&data=05%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cb5a2c412552c4149154f08da59eed142%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921179501778038%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ouqA09rGyTcgandMR2sS7%2BK901NO0tBAYR32aaAl5uI%3D&reserved=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)
+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%2F7820&data=05%7C01%7Cjpatrick%40vmware.com%7Cef39bb9a4e794fba73cd08da59ed3d9a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172911084617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PRAvK0HR0cU5Tg59KVD%2BIjnq8PAsaKfjX8%2BG%2FHeDnAw%3D&reserved=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%2F7323&data=05%7C01%7Cjpatrick%40vmware.com%7Cef39bb9a4e794fba73cd08da59ed3d9a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172911084617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Tvz9IRs642RD89jY41htcIxuwsm1i4e90BJdmsLBYnI%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749&data=05%7C01%7Cjpatrick%40vmware.com%7Cef39bb9a4e794fba73cd08da59ed3d9a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172911084617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nv2NsBKWaTDZhe%2BAfiQfM5JslaQDl48Fbk0OrscDWbQ%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664&data=05%7C01%7Cjpatrick%40vmware.com%7Cef39bb9a4e794fba73cd08da59ed3d9a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637921172911084617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=k9d8Mxjv3llSWWcyL06xjQYDV%2FTXbh393Yk2%2F8%2BOyWU%3D&reserved=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)
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%2F7323&data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7Cac199366a0df4d162f9c08da5903c883%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637920170037751522%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=83n%2BAmPDOOZbvqp5RYaW06mFU2Cy0azhyhWoIXnFlGE%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7749&data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7Cac199366a0df4d162f9c08da5903c883%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637920170037751522%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tllDC%2Fs0wdCC5Q49tl%2ByQXP%2FzA%2BQT%2B%2Bd2XknHDYBgXk%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode%2Fpull%2F7664&data=05%7C01%7Cbakera%40vmware.com%7Cac199366a0df4d162f9c08da5903c883%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637920170037751522%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JBEIgFD59ZP3JtTQ4mIPFHWKUTjFeskfxvSCkW9momw%3D&reserved=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
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
