Hi Robert, David I am very much interested in a backlog review call – personally for two reasons:
1. Learning a bit more about the state of Flink, understanding how each issue would be triaged (and understanding what/why the severity is) 2. Seeing if there are any obvious places that I can help, it’s often easier for me hearing people describe the problem -- Nic Townsend IBM Event Processing Senior Engineer / Technical Lead Slack: @nictownsend From: Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> Date: Wednesday, 6 November 2024 at 15:22 To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Flink technical debt. Hey David, Thanks a lot for this initiative. What do you think about setting up a call weekly or every second week, open to the public, where we collaboratively review a backlog of Jira tickets and triage them into: - Closing, - following up, - assigning a committer owner? The purpose of the call is not to hide anything from anybody, it is just for quicker collaboration. All decisions from the calls need to end up in Jira and on the mailing lists On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 4:07 PM David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> wrote: > Hello, > I have been looking at the Flink Jira and git. I see a large number of > Flink Jira issues that are open and critical or blockers > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-36655?jql=project%20%3D%20FLINK%20AND%20priority%20in%20(Blocker%2C%20Critical) > I realise some of these issues may not actually be critical as they have > been labelled by the submitter. > > I see 1239 open unmerged PRs > https://github.com/apache/flink/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen. Some of these > are not associated with assigned issues, so may never be merged. This > amount of unmerged PRs, means that many people have put a lot of time and > effort into creating code that has not made it into the codebase, so they > do not get the credit for the contribution, which must be disheartening and > the codebase does not get the benefit of the contribution. > > This is a large amount of technical debt. I would like to help address > this problem by setting up a workgroup, with others in the community who > would like this addressed. The scope of the workgroup would be to improve > these numbers by activities such as: > > * Triaging PRs so it is easier for committers to merge or close them. > * Identifying prs that could be closed out as no longer relevant. > * Getting committer buy in. > > Are there other ideas from the community around how this could be improved > with or without a workgroup, or whether the existing processes should be > sufficient or enhanced? > > Is there an appetite to address this in the community? I am happy to drive > this as a community workgroup, with my team in IBM, if there is community > support. > > We could call the community workgroup ?Community Health Initiative? CHI to > energise the Flink community. > > WDYT? > > Kind regards, David. > > Unless otherwise stated above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 > Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park Road, > Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN > Unless otherwise stated above: IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park Road, Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN
