This would work. Anyone assigned as reviewer in the RB need to either execute the review or excuse themselves to make sure all "ship it" votes are accounted for.
- Henry On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com> wrote: > 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 >> > >> > >>
