Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

Hi Thanks all for the thoughts! I discussed with some of the people on this thread and Eng Review offline. It's important to keep OWNERS files up-dated. OWNERS should include people who are meeting the owner's expectations

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

Hi folks, A fair bit of the feedback on Kentaro's proposal has focused on improving Owners suggestions and better handling OOO Owners. We do believe there's a lot of room to improve owners suggestions to help improve review time. OOO is one aspect, but you could also imagine such a system taking

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 11:22 AM 'Christian Dullweber' via Chromium-dev < chromium-...@chromium.org> wrote: > I looked into the first 10 entries manually and there are multiple cases > where I don't think it is correct to remove them. > > There are people who are on long term leave and are

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

This policy, despite the proposed disclaimer paragraph, still feels like it penalizes people who are on leave. Whether it's parental or disability or any other kind of leave, no one should have to jump through hoops upon their return to restart their job (or I guess why not also remove committer

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

I looked into the first 10 entries manually and there are multiple cases where I don't think it is correct to remove them. There are people who are on long term leave and are indicating this in their status message. I would be quite annoyed if I had to figure out all the files I was owner for and

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

Given the amount of discussion this topic has generated, I almost wonder if the, "Let's just run this script and fix any problems later," approach is actually taking more time in total than something more nuanced. Also, is there an AI for any team to follow up on some of the suggestions about

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

Discussed with Peter and Glen offline. I excluded per-file owners and updated the spreadsheet (based on the data as of July 26 when I announced this). To mitigate the concern about removing

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

I agree with the policy to not remove owners because they are on leave. Owners plus OOO status should inform owner selection and we still need that because we shouldn't remove owners while they are out for a week but they sure shouldn't be used during that week. If OOO is an efficient signal this

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

I specifically disagree with the "for this cycle, I'm planning to remove the inactive owners unconditionally" bit. If you suggest this removal but you defer to local OWNERS to make the call I think that's fine to send out removal CLs for. I would encourage you and/or the reviewers to look at the

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

I'm worried that this process excludes/penalizes folks who may be OOO for extended leave (incl long stretches of parental leave, bereavement) and have that in their Gerrit status. This should not be a source of review latency, if it is Gerrit should better surface that they are OOO. Are any of

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

+1 to removing inactive OWNERS. It should not require insider knowledge to find someone to review your CL. While it would be great if our tools were better at handling OOO OWNERS, the current state of affairs is that they aren't. It is easy enough for someone to re-add themselves to OWNERS when

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

On 28/07/2022 16:33, 'Matt Menke' via Chromium-dev wrote: > The assumption is not that they're no longer good owners, but that > people shouldn't have to spend a week waiting on them to reply to a > review before giving up and trying someone else.  Note that owners do > not need to be nominated

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

+1 to needing better tools for handling OOO, and big +1 to using gwsq when there are many reviewers to balance. Given that long leave is potentially 6 months, but unlikely to be 12 months (citation needed), how about changing the criteria to 12 months? Then it sort of covers both "long-tme

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

+1 to improving the tool to handle OOO owners. Let's step back. The problem I'm solving now is: currently OWNERS files contain many long-time inactive, non-OOO owners. The goal is to remove them. Do you agree with the goal? The "long-time inactive" part is covered by looking into their review /

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

On a related topic, one challenge that I have with OOO status is that it's hard to update all the places where you might want to note that (each Gerrit repository, Slack, external Gmail, internal Gmail, Calendar, ...). For Googlers, I have decent tooling for checking whether they're OOO, in my

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

I think our owner-suggesting tooling really needs to be better about deprioritizing owners who are on leave (as well as better load balancing). I'm not sure periodically removing and re-adding owners is the right long-term fix, but it could be acceptable if we're working on better infrastructure

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:29 AM Ali Juma wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 6:07 AM Kentaro Hara wrote: > >> Thanks all for the input! >> >> Dana: >> >>> This list includes per-file owners, did the script look for 100 CLs in >>> those files named by the rule when deciding to remove the

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 6:07 AM Kentaro Hara wrote: > Thanks all for the input! > > Dana: > >> This list includes per-file owners, did the script look for 100 CLs in >> those files named by the rule when deciding to remove the person? > > > Thanks for pointing this out! I'll exclude per-file

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

Thanks all for the input! Dana: > This list includes per-file owners, did the script look for 100 CLs in > those files named by the rule when deciding to remove the person? Thanks for pointing this out! I'll exclude per-file owners from the list for now. Peter: > I'm worried that this

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

> Having your name on OWNERS is an award for your previous amazing contributions I'm concerned that being in OWNERS is regarded as a reward, and being removed as a penalty -- it is part of the problem with cleaning up inactive OWNERS. I'd much prefer to have a separate "amazing contributors" file

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

The data in the table seems off, what is considered a "review": is that a "Code Review +1" or is that any review comment? I also have an edge case where I'm mostly interested in several files in a folder where other files are being changed more frequently, should I be optimizing OWNERS to list

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

Maybe it would make more sense to identify OWNERS who are not active globally in chrome/, instead of owners not active in a particular directory? How common are OWNERS active in Chrome, but high latency only for specific directories? I'm asking as someone who was recently inundated by

Re: [chromium-dev] Re: [blink-dev] Inactive OWNERS cleanup

I echo Dana's concern about removing per-file owners and would like to see that policy rethought. Agree with Peter's observations as well. -Ken On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 9:12 AM Peter Boström wrote: > I'm worried that this process excludes/penalizes folks who may be OOO for > extended leave