+1 to the idea. A first step in the right direction might be to do something you (unintentionally?) implied - default People. We could do this in .reviewboardrc [1], and let the people in there serve as dispatchers to find the right reviewers. I'm happy to volunteer to be in that list if that sounds good.
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/.reviewboardrc -=Bill On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Zameer Manji <zma...@twopensource.com> wrote: > I think establishing MAINTAINERS/OWNERS files is another valid way of doing > this. > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com> > wrote: > > > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend. > > > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across the > code > > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure > > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include all > > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the hook > for > > all reviews from first time contributors. > > > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise. > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to > receive > > > more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not populate > the > > > "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person to > > > ensure we accept or reject contributions. > > > > > > I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for dealing > > with > > > reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility could > > be > > > limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code. > > > > > > What do people think about this idea? > > > > > > -- > > > Zameer Manji > > > > > > > > > -- > Zameer Manji >
