They haven't actually implemented it yet. Here's the discussion thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/mesos-dev/201502.mbox/%3CCA%2B8RcoReugMVqoOpsnB8WGYBELa5fHwPA%3DJ%3DYHJE22iwZvsbeQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
(note the last message in the thread asking how it interacts with the Apache by-laws ;)). On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> >
