Thank you. Needs reviewer changed to Needs committer. On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 13:17, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:09 PM Andrés de la Peña > <a.penya.gar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I like the latest proposal, it's simple enough to prevent inconsistencies > > in usage and "committer needed" seems useful when looking for tickets to > > work on. > > > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 21:14, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > In the meantime the new Kanban board filter for Needs Reviewer is > called > > > Committer Needed which made me think that this may be probably an even > > > better option here based on the states meanings I outlined for myself: > > > > > > PATCH AVAILABLE - we have a patch; No reviewer has started working on > > > review - neither committer, nor non-committer. We have a lonely > > > non-committer patch waiting for committers’ attention. > > > IN REVIEW - we already satisfy the 2 committers reviews requirement and > > > they are both “in progress reviews”. NOTE: We rely on the committers to > > > follow up with non-committers who might be also reviewing whether the > patch > > > can already be committed or not; after the two committers required have > > > approved the patch. > > > COMMITTER NEEDED: > > > - 1st option - we need only one committer to join the review effort in > > > order to satisfy the requirement of two committers’ approval in order > to > > > commit a patch. > > > - 2nd option - we are waiting for a second committer’s review to start > or > > > even both committers’ reviews to start. It doesn't matter which > reviewer > > > was assigned first or second or who starts when, we don’t have the two > > > needed committers’ reviews started yet. > > > > > > Does this make more sense? > > > Do I miss any cases or misunderstood anything? > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 10:45, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > So, I don’t feel strongly about this at all, I just think it will be > more > > > > confusing this way so lead to more inconsistency of usage, as it > will be > > > > unclear what this second reviewer should do if they don’t start > reviewing > > > > immediately, so some tickets will remain in “Needs Second Reviewer” > when > > > it > > > > doesn’t, and others will be in “In Review” when it isn’t. > > > > > > > > It will also be more burdensome to find out the true state of a > ticket: > > > if > > > > the new reviewer transitions a ticket to “In Review” but doesn’t in > fact > > > > start review, you now need to ask a human being if they’re really > > > reviewing > > > > something or not, there’s no way to find out by yourself. If the > > > “Awaiting > > > > Second Review” state is interpreted as perhaps only needing a second > > > > reviewer, a report can easily distinguish this by listing the > contents of > > > > the Reviewers column. > > > > > > > > But, I don’t anticipate losing any sleep over whatever we decide > here. > > > > > > > > From: Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> > > > > Date: Monday, 2 August 2021 at 15:37 > > > > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Jira state for second reviewer > > > > My only worry is that If we incorporate both things in one state this > > > means > > > > that people won’t be able to find immediately tickets to assign for > > > review. > > > > They will have to go and check whether it needs a reviewer or just > the > > > > second reviewer haven’t started review yet. That is why I suggested > then > > > to > > > > have both “Needs Second Reviewer” and “Awaiting Second Review” as > indeed, > > > > we can’t expect that people will immediately start a review when they > > > > assign themselves as a reviewer. That I totally agree with. My only > point > > > > is that we need a state that incorporates really only one state - “we > > > need > > > > a person to help with review” and no other meaning. Otherwise > triaging > > > will > > > > be again harder. IMHO this will help us to produce good reports and > > > easily > > > > identify spots that need attention/help. > > > > I don’t disagree with you, I just think this is one additional point > we > > > > have to consider separately. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 10:17, bened...@apache.org < > bened...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
