Hmm, if the Mesos PMCs understand how ASF work they will be very careful implementing it b4 next board report.
- Henry On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >>
