Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to illustrate the proposal. Regards JB
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:59 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Additionally, I propose allocating a brief 5-10 minute segment during each > Iceberg community sync. > During this time, attendees can highlight any pull requests needing attention. > In cases where a pull request has become stagnant due to a lack of reviews, > committers can step forward to offer assistance by conducting reviews and > aiding in its resolution. > > - Ajantha > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:06 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: >> >> By the way, I worked on a Python program that generate a report containing: >> - GitHub Issues >> - Created since more than 6 months >> - Without assignee >> - Without activity (comment) since more than 7 days >> - GitHub PRs >> - Created since more than 6 months >> - Without reviewer >> - With a single reviewer >> - Without activity (comment, etc) since more than 7 days >> >> The report is a HTML page. I will send it on this thread today or >> tomorrow for review. >> >> For now, I only generate the HTML (locally on the machine), but it >> would be possible to publish on website or automatically (cron) send >> on the dev mailing list. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> > >> > Adding a group of people as reviewers doesn't block others from help >> > and review (and it doesn't change what we do now). I don't see how >> > it's different to today, just having default people reviewing, adding >> > new people. >> > Actually, we clearly have today a bunch of PRs stale just due to lack >> > of reviewers. From a community standard, I'm also concerned that a lot >> > of PR is waiting for review from the same people: that is a concern >> > for community engagement. If we have 3 persons that should >> > review/approve 90% of the PRs, it doesn't scale, it doesn't engage the >> > community, other committers/PMC members might be feeling "untrusted". >> > >> > So the idea is actually to grow the community: the group of reviewers >> > can invite other people to review (having default reviewers on some >> > modules doesn't block adding others). We have several examples of >> > Apache projects where it works fine (Apache Beam is an example, we >> > increased the community engagement thanks to feedback from reviewer >> > pretty quickly instead of stale for a while and contributors give up >> > due to no response). >> > >> > Anyway, I propose to update my proposal this way: >> > 1. I update the stale PR periodical reminder (every week) >> > 2. I don't add reviewers yml, but if a PR doesn't have reviewer after >> > a week, I send a report on the dev mailing list listing all stale and >> > no review started PRs) >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 5:03 PM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: >> > > >> > > Sorry, I'm a strong -1 for having owners or standard reviewers. >> > > >> > > In this community, we've always taken the stance that anyone should be >> > > able to jump in and help. Having assigned owners may seem like a good >> > > idea, but it actually prevents other people from volunteering and >> > > getting involved. This is also why we don't assign issues to individuals >> > > -- they often don't end up submitting a PR and it prevents other people >> > > from contributing. Having an assigned owner gives the impression that >> > > the responsibility is on a particular individual, making other people >> > > that are capable of reviewing not pay attention. I think this will slow >> > > down the community and I don't think it is a good idea. >> > > >> > > Ryan >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:36 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> +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. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Ryan Blue >> > > Tabular
