Hi Manu Yup, it's on my TODO. Thanks for the reminder, I will be back on this one this week :)
Regards JB On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 4:07 AM Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi JB, > > Are you still working on this nice proposal? > > Regards, > Manu > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:35 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Nice! I fully agree with the abovementioned. I originally set up the >> stalebot for the issues because I noticed that there were many issues around >> old Spark versions that weren't even maintained anymore. I feel it is better >> to either close or take action on an issue. For me, it makes sense to extend >> this to PRs as well. >> >> Same as Amogh said, always feel free to ping me when either a PR or issue >> lingering and you need some eyes on it. >> >> Kind regards, >> Fokko >> >> Op do 4 jan 2024 om 07:42 schreef Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> That's also the purpose of the reviewers file: having multiple >>> reviewers per tag. >>> >>> Thanks guys for your feedback, I will move forward with the PR :) >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 6:38 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > +1, >>> > >>> > Some of my PRs have been open for a long time and sometimes it doesn't >>> > get the attention it requires. >>> > Notifying both the reviewer and the author can help expedite the review >>> > process and facilitate quicker handling of new contributions. >>> > I think having more than one committer assigned for PR can also >>> > definitely help in speeding up the process if one of the committer is >>> > busy or on holiday. >>> > >>> > But we also need to think on the next steps. What if we still don't >>> > receive the necessary response even after sending notifications? >>> > Should we have a slack channel for those PRs to conclude by discussing >>> > (or some guidelines on how to take it further). >>> > >>> > We can have a trial run for some days and see how it goes. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Ajantha >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:19 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <am...@tabular.io> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> +1, I think this is a step in the right direction. One other >>> >> consideration I wanted to bring up was dependabot and if there's any >>> >> unique handling we want to do there because I've noticed that PRs from >>> >> dependabot tend to pile up. I think with the proposal we won't really >>> >> need to do anything unique and just treat it as a normal PR (it would be >>> >> a build label with its own set of reviewers) and we'll get notified the >>> >> same way. >>> >> >>> >> I'll also say for reviews (speaking for myself, but I think many others >>> >> probably feel this way as well), always feel free to ping on Slack and >>> >> follow up :) But overall I do like having more of a mechanism.
