I'm ok with that, as I think it's a better experience for new contributors than the current situation. However, my understanding is that we generally have a policy that you need a ship it from everyone on the People line of a review. If that's the case than the default people need to be cognizant of their default status and be sure to remove themselves when appropriate reviewers have been assigned.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> wrote: > Looking at the reviewboard documentation > < > https://www.reviewboard.org/docs/rbtools/dev/rbt/commands/post/#rbt-post-review-request-field-options > > > it > seems we can set the TARGET_PEOPLE field in .reviewboardrc to ensure the > people line is auto-populated for each review. I think populating it > initially with wfarner@ and one or two other committers would be a good > next step. > > I think being on this list does not mean the people need to review the > patch, just ensure it is routed to someone who has the bandwidth and > expertise to review it for quality. > > Does anyone else volunteer? > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thanks for that background, Henry! That is actually useful for other > > unrelated thoughts I have had. We will make sure to keep this in mind. > > > > On Monday, February 23, 2015, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > <javascript:;>> 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 > > > <javascript:;>> 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > -=Bill > > > > -- > > Zameer Manji > > > > >
