Igniters, Since we found that proposed approach can help, no one mind that I'll add text listed above to the wiki?
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Dmitry, > > 1) See my initial email, it contains instruction how to find a reviewer. > And it's pretty easy to do when you have something to review (you did some > code changes). > > I want to add following to our wiki: > > " > Ask commiter to review changes. > Check affected file's git history to find commiter most likely able to > review changes. > In case it's hard to determine who's able to review by git history use > maintainers list presented above. > Add "review request" comment to the ticket starting with a commiter > username. > > for example: "[~avinogradov], Please review my changes." > > Commiter will gain notification and review your changes and/or find > another commiter to do this. > > Important: Each comment should be started with [~username]. > " > > 2) It will be a huge help to the community! > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Anton, >> >> >> Thank you for explanation. Personal ask instead of group broadcast may >> really help. I understand the idea now. >> >> >> One argument against solution way 1) it may be not easy for contributor, >> especially newcomer, to find a right person. >> >> >> What do you think about way 2? Personally, I'm ready to help with analysis >> and assignment of these 66 tasks from next week. >> >> >> >> вт, 6 июн. 2017 г. в 12:57, Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com>: >> >> > Dmitry Pavlov, >> > >> > There is *HUGE *difference between "Devlist, please review my changes" >> > and "Dmitry Pavlov, please review my changes". >> > >> > In case you're busy right now, you'll, most likely, ignore appeal to >> > devlist, but, I'm pretty sure, you'll check appeal to yourself. >> > Am I right? >> > >> > So, my idea is: appeal to devlist is a useless spam maker approach, but >> > appeal to person(s) works. >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> dsetrak...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Wow, we have 66 tickets waiting for review.... this is pretty bad. >> > > Something must definitely change. >> > > >> > > From my side, having a contributor shop around for a reviewer is not >> > really >> > > fair. However, I would support the idea of Apache Ignite community >> > electing >> > > a person responsible to find reviewers for all contributions. >> > > >> > > D. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > 1) There is waiting for review list here >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/ >> > > > Issues+waiting+for+review >> > > > >> > > > 2) some of contributions are supplemented by dev-list messages >> (please >> > > > review my PR…) >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > And these two tools sometimes do not help. I suppose it is because >> of >> > > > reviewers already have some things to do, but not because of lack of >> > tool >> > > > support. Do you have other explanations? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > But still, Igor’s suggestion to notify to dev list sounds >> reasonable to >> > > me. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Anton, could it solve your requirement to know about issue needed to >> > > > review? >> > > > >> > > > пн, 5 июн. 2017 г. в 21:06, Igor Sapego <isap...@gridgain.com>: >> > > > >> > > > > By the way, there are emails being sent from Jira to devlist every >> > > > > time someone adds comment to ticket, or, for example, edits its >> > > > > title which helps a lot to keep a track of ticket's state. >> > > > > >> > > > > But by some reason there is no such notification when ticket >> silently >> > > > > getting moved to "Patch available" state. I believe, that would >> help >> > if >> > > > > there was a notification for that. Is it possible to configure? >> > > > > >> > > > > Best Regards, >> > > > > Igor >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > In general, I tend to agree with Anton that something needs to >> be >> > > > changed >> > > > > > in this direction. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > How many of you flip through dev list, JIRA or GitHub >> notifications >> > > in >> > > > an >> > > > > > attempt to find tickets that demand your attention? I bet the >> > > > percentage >> > > > > is >> > > > > > pretty low. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > To solve this issue I see two options: >> > > > > > 1) Proposed by Anton. >> > > > > > 2) Having a guy in the community who’ll keep an eye on all the >> > > incoming >> > > > > > pull-requests shuffling them between committer in the same way >> > > proposed >> > > > > in >> > > > > > 1. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Personally, I’m for 1. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > — >> > > > > > Denis >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Dmitry Pavlov < >> > dpavlov....@gmail.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Anton, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It is ok for me if it is advice and hint for faster review, >> as it >> > > is >> > > > > now. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We can periodically remind about this opportunity at dev list >> or >> > in >> > > > the >> > > > > > > issue comments. We can remind that tasks in patch available >> > status >> > > > may >> > > > > be >> > > > > > > reassigned by contributor. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Looking from prospective of overall throughput: it is not >> clear >> > for >> > > > me >> > > > > > how >> > > > > > > this process change will help. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best Regards, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > пн, 5 июн. 2017 г. в 20:16, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Vova, >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Contributors interested to make contributions and I propose >> them >> > > to >> > > > > use >> > > > > > >> *same* strategy as we (people inside the community) use. >> > > > > > >> "-1" will not solve this issue, but my "tips" will. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Dmitry, >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> The main problem here is that nobody notified that someone is >> > > > waiting >> > > > > > for >> > > > > > >> the review. >> > > > > > >> It's not a problem for me to provide tips or to make review, >> but >> > > > it's >> > > > > > >> problem to periodically check is there somebody waiting. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Guys, >> > > > > > >> Let's try this approach, and I'm pretty sure it will help. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < >> > > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> >> > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> Hi Igniters, Anton, >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> Let’s imagine that development process as a chain of >> production >> > > > > stages >> > > > > > >>> 1) Developing patch by contributor >> > > > > > >>> 2) Review changes by committer >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> Reviews waiting too long time to be done at stage 2 may >> > indicate >> > > > that >> > > > > > >> speed >> > > > > > >>> (potential throughput) of step 2 is less than throughput at >> > step >> > > 1. >> > > > > > T2<T1 >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> In terms of this model (inspired by Goldratt’s Theory of >> > > > Constraints >> > > > > > >>> (TOC)), I have a question: >> > > > > > >>> Will this responsibility movement (to find appropriate >> reviewer >> > > to >> > > > > > >>> contributor) help us to increase overall throughput? >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> If we agree constraint in terms of TOC is throughput T2, I >> > > suggest >> > > > > > >>> following steps >> > > > > > >>> - Increase the throughput T2 of the committers >> > > > > > >>> - Reduce the load on the committers by improve quality of >> code >> > > > after >> > > > > > >> stage >> > > > > > >>> 1 given to review (pre review by non-committer, automatic >> > review, >> > > > > code >> > > > > > >>> inspections) >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> Best Regards, >> > > > > > >>> Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> пн, 5 июн. 2017 г. в 18:28, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org >> >: >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>>> Igniters, >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> Currently, according to >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+ >> > > > > > >>> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-SubmittingforReview >> > > > > > >>>> , >> > > > > > >>>> contributor can ask for review by moving ticket to PATCH >> > > AVAILABLE >> > > > > > >> state. >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> And, as far as I can see, this cause broken tickets issue. >> > > > > > >>>> Contributor can wait somebody who'll review his changes >> for a >> > > > month >> > > > > or >> > > > > > >>> even >> > > > > > >>>> more. >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> I propose to change workflow and *make contributor >> responsible >> > > to >> > > > > find >> > > > > > >>>> reviewer*. >> > > > > > >>>> It's pretty easy to find a person able to review changes in >> > most >> > > > of >> > > > > > >>> cases. >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> 1) You can check git history of files you modified and find >> > > > persons >> > > > > > >> with >> > > > > > >>>> expertise in this code >> > > > > > >>>> 2) In case you have problems with such search you can >> always >> > use >> > > > > > >>>> maintainers list ( >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+ >> > > > > > >>> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers >> > > > > > >>>> ) >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> Thoughts? >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
