I have set Joshua and Bill to be the defaults for now: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31496/
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- > Zameer Manji > >
