+1 for having multiple PR review owners per module/label. Having module owners can accelerate PR processing. For instance, I'm awaiting feedback on a Spark action for computing partition stats ( https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9437). Currently, only Anton is reviewing, which may cause delays if he's occupied. In my opinion, having multiple module owners would enable developers to seek feedback more efficiently.
- Ajantha On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:11 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi folks > > Now that we have the proposal process "merged", I will create the PR > about reviewers and update stale job. > > I should have the PR tomorrow for review. > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > > Hi Dan > > > > Yes, I saw you merged it, that's great. > > > > I will move forward on the "stale bot" stuff. > > > > Thanks ! > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:48 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hey JB, apologies for combining these two things in the same thread, > but we got enough eyes on the first PR and I went ahead and merged i > > > > > > If you want to put together the PR for your proposed changes, we can > get looking at that. > > > > > > We'll also need to backfill the existing proposals and update the > website to have a link to the label. (Will work with you and Bits on that) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:01 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Fokko > > >> > > >> I think combining Dan's proposal about "proposal process" and this > > >> proposal about "PR flows" would be helpful for the project (to track > > >> the proposals and avoid "stale" PRs/proposals). > > >> > > >> If PMC members are OK, I'm ready to help to set this up :) > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> Regards > > >> JB > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:27 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hey everyone, > > >> > > > >> > This is a gentle bump from my end on this thread since I like the > idea. Several people have already approved Dan's PR about formalizing the > proposal process. Are there any questions or concerns from the PMC before > adopting this? > > >> > > > >> > Kind regards, > > >> > Fokko Driesprong > > >> > > > >> > Op wo 13 mrt 2024 om 13:17 schreef Renjie Liu < > liurenjie2...@gmail.com>: > > >> >> > > >> >> Hi, JB: > > >> >> > > >> >> Your proposal looks great to me. We should definitely have a vote > for a proposal impacting the spec, and the model is great. > > >> >> > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Hi > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I think a vote would be necessary only if we don't have consensus > on a > > >> >>> proposal. If anyone is OK with the proposal (no clear "concern" > in the > > >> >>> doc and/or the GitHub issue), a vote is not required. > > >> >>> That said, any proposal impacting a spec should be voted (as part > of > > >> >>> the spec proposal). > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I think it's fair to identify a proposal vote as a "code > modification" vote. > > >> >>> It means that it follows this model: a negative vote constitutes a > > >> >>> veto , which the voting group (generally the PMC of a project) > cannot > > >> >>> override. Again, this model may be modified by a lazy consensus > > >> >>> declaration when the request for a vote is raised, but the > full-stop > > >> >>> nature of a negative vote does not change. Under normal (non-lazy > > >> >>> consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three positive votes > and > > >> >>> no negative votes in order to pass; if it fails to garner the > > >> >>> requisite amount of support, it doesn't. Then the proposer either > > >> >>> withdraws the proposal or modifies the code and resubmits it, or > the > > >> >>> proposal simply languishes as an open issue until someone gets > around > > >> >>> to removing it. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> We can link to https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Regards > > >> >>> JB > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:21 AM Renjie Liu < > liurenjie2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > Hi, Daniel: > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > Thanks for this summary. > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > I think one thing missing is that do we need a vote for the > proposal to be accepted or rejected? If required, what should the voting > process be? > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:04 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> Hey everyone, I synced up with JB about the proposal process > and wanted to see if we could make some initial progress. > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> Based on some of the earlier discussions, we want to leverage > as much of the informal process as possible, but improve discoverability > and a little structure. This probably means using github for tracking, > google docs where possible for the early proposal implementation comments, > and the dev list for discussion threads, awareness and voting. > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> That said, I propose we adopt the following: > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> 1. A simple issue template for initiating a proposal and > applying a 'proposal' label to the issue > > >> >>> >> 2. Use a github search link to document current proposals > (based on the 'proposal' label) > > >> >>> >> 3. Continue using google docs for proposals > documentation/comments (referenced from the github issue) > > >> >>> >> 4. Continue to create DISCUSS threads on the dev list for > communication > > >> >>> >> 4. Backfill current proposals by creating issues for them > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> I've created this PR to capture the initial template and docs. > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> I think we want to introduce this with as little overhead as > possible. Please follow up with questions/comments so we can close this > out. > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> Thanks, > > >> >>> >> Dan > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 11:30 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> 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. >
