Still, even with a group of volunteers coordinating well, it is possible to do better than we currently do, which is the goal. No hard guarantees, agreed, but reasonable estimates and rules-of-thumbs can work well...
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:21 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: > There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it possible to > provide this in any way on the project level. > > As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work > voluntarily, and > as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies such) or > similar is simply not feasible. > > On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote: > > I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution / PR > > should be handled through the official project channel. > > > > I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and "experts", > > for the reasons Fabian mentioned. > > > > Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but then > > what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at? > > > > Thanks, > > Thomas > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <wander4...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Fabian, > >> > >> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing lists. > >> > >> Now I am of the same opinion. > >> > >> Best, > >> tison. > >> > >> > >> Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道： > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing > >> lists > >>> instead of asking just a single expert. > >>> > >>> There's many reasons for that: > >>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the > >> expert > >>> is not available?) > >>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the > community > >>> (how can they become experts otherwise?) > >>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when only > >> one > >>> person can answer the question) > >>> > >>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular > >> contribution > >>> areas would be flooded with requests. > >>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle all > >>> review requests directed at me. > >>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I > deem > >>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed > >> things > >>> up. > >>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but IMO > >>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number of > >>> requests. > >>> > >>> Best, Fabian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen < > >>> wander4...@gmail.com > >>>> : > >>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan! > >>>> > >>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?* > >>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the > >>>> first. > >>>> > >>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the > >>>> feature? > >>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1 > >>>> > >>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention > >>>> > >>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a > >>>> suggestion. > >>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for advice > >> or > >>>> transfer > >>>> the right of decision. > >>>> > >>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach > or > >>>> link it > >>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new > >>> contributors > >>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it > would > >>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism > >> underneath > >>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> tison. > >>>> > >
