So what happens when having a shepherd is not helpful, e.g. when the designated shepherd gets encumbered with a pile of higher-priority responsibilities while the PR being shepherded is still in process?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Evan Chan <e...@ooyala.com> wrote: > +1. > > I really like this idea. I know having a shepherd would have been really > helpful for a couple of changes. > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Andy Konwinski <andykonwin...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I thought this email exchange from the Mesos dev list was worth sharing. > > The Mesos project is trying out a process wherein they assign shepherds > > (who are committers) to significant issues. > > > > I'm not proposing that this necessarily makes sense for us, but I thought > > it might be worth discussing. > > > > Andy > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: "Benjamin Mahler" <benjamin.mah...@gmail.com> > > Date: Mar 24, 2014 11:47 PM > > Subject: Re: Shepherding on ExternalContainerizer > > To: "dev" <d...@mesos.apache.org> > > Cc: > > > > Hey Till, > > > > We want to foster a healthy review culture, and so, as you observed, we > > thought we would try out the notion of having a "shepherd" for each > review. > > > > In the past we've had some reviews stagnate because there was no clear > > accountability for getting it committed. Meaning, various committers > would > > be included in the 'Reviewers' and each would provide feedback > > independently, but there was no single person accountable for > "shepherding" > > the change to a shippable state, and ultimately committing it. > > > > We've also had issues with having a lot of lower value reviews crowding > out > > higher value reviews. Often these lower value reviews are things like > > cleanup, refactoring, etc, which tend to be easier to review. Shepherding > > doesn't address this as directly, but it is also an effort to ensure we > > balance low value changes (technical debt, refactoring, cleanup, etc) > with > > higher value changes (features, bug fixes, etc) via shepherd assignment. > > > > This is why we've been trying out the "shepherd" concept. > > > > Related to this (and *not* related to your changes Till :)), I would > > encourage two behaviors from "reviewees" to ameliorate the situation: > > > > 1. Please be cognizant of the fact that reviewing tends to be a > bottleneck > > and that reviewer time is currently at a premium. This means, please be > > very thorough in your work and also look over your patches before sending > > them out. This saves your time (faster reviews) and reviewers' time > (fewer > > comments needed). Feel free to reach out for feedback before sending out > > reviews as well (if feasible). > > > > 2. Also, be cognizant of the fact that we need to balance low and high > > priority reviews. Sometimes we don't have time to review low value > cleanup > > work when there are a lot of things in flight. For example, I have a > bunch > > of old cleanup patches from when we need to get more important things > > committed, and I know Vinod has old cleanup patches like this as well. > > > > This all being said, the external containerizer is high value and should > > definitely be getting reviews. I will take some time to go over your > > changes later this week with Ian, when I'll be free from a deadline ;). > We > > can help "pair shepherd" your changes. > > > > Ben > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Till Toenshoff <toensh...@me.com> > wrote: > > > > > Dear Devs/Committers, > > > > > > after having developed the ExternalContainerizer, I am now obviously > > eager > > > to get it committed. After receiving and addressing a couple of > comments > > > (thanks @all who commented - that helped a lot), I now am once again > in a > > > stage of waiting and keeping fingers crossed that my patch won't need > > > rebasing before someone has a thorough look at it. I do appreciate and > > > fully understand the fact that you committers are under heavy load. > > > > > > By experience and seeing some RR comments, I learned that there appears > > to > > > be a new entity in our review process; a "shepherd". Sounds like a > great > > > idea, even though I am not entirely sure what that means in detail for > > > Mesos. I guess that is something that makes sure that final commit > > > decisions are done by a single voice, preventing contradicting > comments > > > etc... Knowing that other projects actually demand the patch-submitter > to > > ask > > > for shepherding, I figured why not doing the same. > > > > > > For that ExternalContainerizer baby, I would kindly like to call out > for > > a > > > shepherd. Guessing that a shepherd needs to be a committer but also > > knowing > > > that Ian is very deeply involved within containerizing, I would like to > > > "nominate" Niklas as a committer in collaboration with Ian. Hope that > > makes > > > sense and don't hesitate to tell me that this was not the right way to > > > achieve shepherding. > > > > > > cheers! > > > Till > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > Evan Chan > Staff Engineer > e...@ooyala.com | > > <http://www.ooyala.com/> > <http://www.facebook.com/ooyala><http://www.linkedin.com/company/ooyala>< > http://www.twitter.com/ooyala> >
