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

; 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

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

? (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

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) > ⚠ Externa

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

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

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

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

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

: 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

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

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

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

PR reviews

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

ovoza 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 > P

Odg: Need PR reviews

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>

Need PR reviews

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:

PR Reviews

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,

Re: PR reviews

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.

Re: PR reviews

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 >

PR reviews

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

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

+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

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

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

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

+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

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

+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

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

+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

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

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