Do you know how MAINTAINERS file work for Mesos? Does it list different committers for each areas of Mesos?
- Henry On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com> wrote: > We had to revert this change as it was causing rbt to set the TARGET_PEOPLE > as the reviewers on update. We could probably hack our local rbt script to > add a --target-people option for new reviews (no -r flag passed?) if we > wanted to go that route. Alternately we could follow in the footsteps of > Mesos and add MAINTAINERS files (and have our rbt script add people based > on that). > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> 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 >> > >> > >>
