+1, Agree to use the PR template.
Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> 于2018年10月17日周三 上午12:48写道： > Hi everyone, > > Instead of manually adding the review progress template as a comment to > every new PR, we could also append it to the PR description template. > The benefits would be: > + no need to add it manually since it is automatically added to each PR > + the template is versioned in the Flink Git repository > + contributors can learn about the review process before opening a PR > > On the downside, the template grows a bit at the end. > > What do you think? > > Best, Fabian > > Am Mo., 24. Sep. 2018 um 15:51 Uhr schrieb Fabian Hueske < > fhue...@gmail.com > >: > > > Hi, > > > > Coming back to the original topic of the thread: How to implement the > > guided review process. > > > > I am in favor of starting with a low-tech solution. > > We design a review template with a checkbox for the five questions (see > > [1]) and a link to the detailed description of the review process ([1] > will > > be added to flink.apache.org). > > Once a PR is opened, anybody (the PR author, a committer, any reviewer, > > ...) can post the review template as a comment. Ideally this happens > > shortly after the PR was opened. > > If we find it necessary, we can later add a bot to automate posting the > > template as comment. > > > > Once the template is posted, the PR can be reviewed by following the > > process and answering the template questions. > > When all boxes are ticked off, the PR can be merged. > > > > Best, > > Fabian > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk/ > > > > > > Am Mo., 24. Sep. 2018 um 12:27 Uhr schrieb vino yang < > > yanghua1...@gmail.com>: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> About "valuable", I agree with @Aljoscha that there is no clear standard > >> of > >> judgment about "valuable". > >> But I think the priority may be a more specific indicator, because the > >> JIRA > >> issue also has a "Priority" attribute. > >> Maybe we can tag the PR, for example: use the "Label" function of > github, > >> or add the "[Priority]" tag to the PR title? > >> > >> Regarding the closure of inactive PR, I feel that it is more cautious to > >> shut down artificially. > >> Whether it is possible to explicitly assign a PR to a committer familiar > >> with the module, which will reduce the unnecessary ping operation of > many > >> contributors. > >> Because some people don't know which committer is familiar with the > module > >> he changed. > >> > >> Thanks, vino. > >> > >> Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> 于2018年9月24日周一 下午5:03写道： > >> > >> > In Beam, we have a bot that regularly nags people about inactive PRs > and > >> > also closes them after long inactivity. > >> > > >> > And we use the github feature for assigning reviewers in github. > >> > > >> > Sometimes it is hard for people to judge how "valuable" a PR is. Maybe > >> > some knowledgable people could mark PRs as valuable if they think > it's a > >> > good addition but if they don't have the review bandwith. Other people > >> can > >> > then search for valuable PRs that don't yet a reviewer and > review/merge > >> > them. > >> > > >> > Aljoscha > >> > > >> > > On 22. Sep 2018, at 04:25, vino yang <yanghua1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Hi Jin Sun, > >> > > > >> > > Earlier this year, I also had these questions when I started > >> contributing > >> > > code to Flink. In fact, the timing of a PR being reviewed will be > >> related > >> > > to the priority of the problem solved by the PR. > >> > > And when you indicate the module to which it belongs in the title of > >> the > >> > > PR, like "[FLINK-xxxx][module] XXXX", the person in charge of the > >> > relevant > >> > > module or the contributor who is familiar with it will find it > easier. > >> > > > >> > > To Stephan: > >> > > > >> > > Maybe we can open a separate mail thread (after all, the current > >> > discussion > >> > > thread is about a specific topic) to hear the contributors about PR > >> > review > >> > > related questions and doubts. Perhaps some of their feedback will > help > >> > the > >> > > community improve the way they review. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, vino. > >> > > > >> > > Jin Sun <isun...@gmail.com> 于2018年9月22日周六 上午6:40写道： > >> > > > >> > >> As a new contributor I cared about how to make my contribution > >> accepted > >> > by > >> > >> the community, some questions: > >> > >> 1) When will it get reviewed? Is there a rule about review > timeline? > >> > >> 2) There are long backlog of pull requests, What happened if a pull > >> > >> request not get noticed, do we have some mechanism to make it > moving > >> > >> forward, like a pull request will be assigned a owner of reviewer? > >> Or we > >> > >> have a review queue and a pull request will be get handled fairly. > >> > >> > >> > >> Jin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Sep 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Hi all! > >> > >>> > >> > >>> This thread is dedicated to discuss the tooling we want to use for > >> the > >> > >>> reviews. > >> > >>> It is spun out of the proposal *"A more structured approach to > >> reviews > >> > >> and > >> > >>> contributions".* > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> *Suggestions brought up so far* > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> *Use comments / template with checklist* > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Easy to do > >> > >>> - Manual, a bit of reviewer overhead, reviewers needs to know the > >> > >> process > >> > >>> > >> > >>> *Use a bot * > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Automatically add the review questions to each new PR > >> > >>> - Further details? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> *Use GitHub labels* > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Searchable > >> > >>> - possibly not obvious to new contributors > >> > >>> - Any restrictions? Do members need to apply at ASF infra to have > >> > >>> permissions to edit github labels? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
