I was proposing substituting “Needs Second Reviewer” for “Awaiting Second Review” as this encapsulates the need for an additional reviewer _and_ the pending status for the review beginning.
I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that once a reviewer is found that they will move it into “In Review” nor would that be very helpful, as we would not know which tickets were actively under review as opposed to pending review by an agreed second reviewer. From: Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 2 August 2021 at 15:15 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Jira state for second reviewer Thank you all. On Benedict’s question, my understanding is that the idea of Needs Second Reviewer is to indicate we need to find a second reviewer. I suspect when we find one he/she will move it to “In review” and provide status updates in the ticket. I am open for better suggestions. I guess “Awaiting Second Review” can be added to show that we have reviewers but the second review is not started yet? I would personally probably skip adding it and rely that people will follow up on their assignments. If we incorporate the alerts suggestions that were made some time ago - I think it would be better after the ticket was in review for particular amount of time, alert/reminder to be sent to the reviewers. But probably we can also do both things for more visibility if we as a community want to. On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 10:02, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > Perhaps “Awaiting Second Review”? > > It looks from the flow that this is more accurate, as a second reviewer > could have been assigned but review could not yet have gotten underway? > It’s unclear to me what you would do in this case – would it return to > Patch Available, or sit in Needs Second Reviewer? > > From: Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, 2 August 2021 at 14:57 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Jira state for second reviewer > +1 > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 8:40 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova > <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > While triaging tickets last week, we realized that the new state works > well > > with only one caveat. The expectation is Patch Available to be used when > > there is no reviewer available and Needs Reviewer to be used when we > need a > > second reviewer. The name Needs Reviewer might be confusing though and > > someone can use it also for first reviewer needed which makes triaging a > > bit harder. Benjamin suggested a change of name from Needs Reviewer to > > Needs 2nd Reviewer to make its usage more explicit for people. Any > thoughts > > or objections here? > > > > Best regards, > > Ekaterina > > > > On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 4:54, Benjamin Lerer <ble...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > That sounds good to me. Thanks a lot Brandon and Ekaterina for taking > care > > > of that. > > > > > > Le mer. 7 juil. 2021 à 23:47, Ekaterina Dimitrova < > e.dimitr...@gmail.com> > > > a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > Hey everyone, > > > > Considering the latest report of patches which need a reviewer, I > think > > > > this new Jira state is a great addition. > > > > I took it one step further today and asked for it to be available > after > > > > PATCH AVAILABLE too. This is already implemented. I hope Brandon > doesn’t > > > > mind my intervention. The reason for that decision was that > sometimes we > > > > have already first reviewer assigned who is still not working on a > review > > > > but this shouldn’t stop us to be looking already for a second > reviewer. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ekaterina > > > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 9:41, Benjamin Lerer <ble...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 à 05:58, Caleb Rackliffe < > > > calebrackli...@gmail.com> > > > > a > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2021, at 4:38 PM, Brandon Williams < > dri...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since our project governance requires two committers, which in > some > > > > > > > circumstances may mean two committers need to review, I'd like > to > > > add > > > > > > > another state to our jira such that finding tickets that need a > > > > second > > > > > > > reviewer is possible, since it is not currently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On slack, Paulo Motta suggested this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patch Available -> Review in Progress <-> Needs Reviewer* -> > Ready > > > To > > > > > > Commit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where "needs reviewer" is an optional state that can then move > back > > > > to > > > > > > > "Review in Progress" and carry on. This would affect all > tickets > > > in > > > > > > > the project, so I'm curious if there are any thoughts or > > > objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > Brandon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >
