Ok, we need to be careful about this maintainers/owners or shepherds business.
Apache Spark got into some trouble from board when introducing this concept. First of all, in the eyes of ASF, all (P)PMCs have equal rights and responsibilities. Meaning, no concept of owners or maintainers for particular parts that could insinuate different hierarchy of approval for commits from one to another PMCs/ committers. This needs to be thought out carefully to make sure that the "shepherds" mainly just extra pairs of eyes to watch over new contributions to make sure got proper reviews. - Henry 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 >>
