On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> Igniters, > > Since we found that proposed approach can help, > no one mind that I'll add text listed above to the wiki? > I don't think that we have an agreement yet. Again, I still don't think it is fair for a contributor to find a committer that has a relevant area of expertise. A contributor should feel free to ask any committer for a review, but it should not be mandatory. I would rather have an existing contributor or committer help with finding a reviewer. > > 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? > >> > > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
