Hi folks, Thanks for your feedback.
I will close the current PR and create a new one proposing a requirement of two reviewers, as I suggested a few weeks ago. Regards, JB On Fri, Jan 2, 2026 at 9:19 PM Prashant Singh via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi JB, > > Thank you for the proposal. > > I’m open to trialing this, though I agree with others that this change may > not significantly impact my personal workflow. Before we move forward, I’d > like to clarify a few details regarding the logistics: > > - > > *Selection Criteria:* How were the designated reviewers for each module > selected? Was it based on commit history, past review activity, or > another > metric? > - > > *External Feedback:* How will we handle concerns raised by > non-designated reviewers? I firmly believe we should prioritize > "community > over code"—if a community member raises a valid point, we should reach a > consensus rather than bypassing it based on reviewer status. > > Regarding the speed of merges: I believe "merging too fast" is an > oversimplification of the core issue. The real concern is building > consensus on implementation and goals, and providing the community > sufficient time to provide feedback. While typos or urgent bug fixes can be > fast-tracked, the same cannot be said for new features—especially those > that add dependencies on external projects, reinvent existing logic, or > complicate the design *without explaining what alternatives were considered > and building consensus around them.* > > I really like the suggestion made in the other thread [1] regarding a > requirement for two reviewers; I believe this would be a great step toward > ensuring quality and consensus. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/hzxds729v5r68togbfx76l14f9m4bfj4 > > Best, > > Prashant > > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 10:36 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > The proposal addresses the issue of PRs being merged too quickly by > > requiring approval from a designated reviewer before a merge can occur. > By > > combining module-specific reviewers with the requirement for at least one > > formal review, we can ensure better oversight. > > > > Ultimately, my goal is simply to improve the current process. > Personally, I > > don't see an issue with PRs being merged quickly as long as the relevant > > reviewers are satisfied with the changes. > > > > For context, we discussed that during the community sprint last month, so > > it's just a proposal. If we are fine with the current process, that's OK, > > and totally fine to merge a PR super fast. > > > > Regards, > > JB > > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 1:03 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks JB for the proposal of reviewer notification! > > > > > > I generally agree with Dmitri here. For me personally, this probably > does > > > not make much difference either, since I am already getting pinged on > PRs > > > anyways. > > > > > > My main concern is that having a list of module reviewers does not > really > > > address the core issue raised, namely PRs being merged too quickly > > without > > > sufficient oversight. As far as I know, this has never really been a > > > problem of the right people not being notified in the first place. > > > > > > I am neutral to this effort overall, and happy to see it tried if the > > > community thinks it helps. I am just a bit hesitant about adding more > > > process and complexity without a clearer benefit or a stronger > guarantee > > > that it actually improves review quality. I'm pretty sure people may > have > > > different thoughts on whether he/she should be on which lists. One way > to > > > move forward is to empty all lists as the initial PR. People can add > > > themselves voluntarily if they want to get notified, however, it may > not > > be > > > worth the effort overall though. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 6:32 AM Adam Christian < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Howdy JB, > > > > > > > > I like this idea. > > > > > > > > I believe that this is a natural step given how the codebase and > active > > > > participation has grown. This helps us solve a few problems: > > > > 1. For subject matter experts, it allows them to know which reviews > > truly > > > > need their attention without having to sort through an inbox. > > > > 2. For new contributors, it allows them to know who understands the > > > > codebase, so they can get help as they are onboarding. > > > > > > > > Go community, > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 11:04 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi JB, > > > > > > > > > > Using the auto-labeller to notify some specific people on PRs > sounds > > > > > reasonable to me. > > > > > > > > > > For me personally, it probably makes little difference as I get > > > > > notifications for all PRs anyway :) However, I'm willing to > > participate > > > > and > > > > > see how the new system works in practice. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 2:08 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Some time ago, we decided to remove auto-reviewers on PRs to > > prevent > > > > > email > > > > > > flooding and increase the "velocity". However, we have recently > > > > discussed > > > > > > concerns regarding PRs being merged too quickly without > sufficient > > > > > > oversight. Additionally, several contributors have volunteered to > > > help > > > > > > review changes for specific modules. > > > > > > > > > > > > To address this, I have drafted a proposal for module-specific > > > > reviewers: > > > > > > - PRs will be automatically labeled based on the modules > affected. > > > > > > - A specific set of reviewers/experts will be automatically added > > to > > > > the > > > > > PR > > > > > > based on those labels. > > > > > > > > > > > > The goal is to ensure the right "experts" are notified without > > > > > overwhelming > > > > > > everyone with notifications. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have created a PR to illustrate how this would work: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3328 > > > > > > Please note that this is an initial draft of the labels and > > > reviewers, > > > > > and > > > > > > we can refine the lists as needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
