> On 21 Dec 2016, at 14:35, Ole Troan <o...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> That makes sense to me. We have a few problems to address: >> >> 1. Patches not being reviewed in a timely fashion >> 2. Committers spending too much time reviewing patches >> 3. Committers reviewing patches outside their area of expertise >> 4. Inability to filter code review request emails from general chit-chat, >> contributing to (1). >> >> How about this? >> >> O Based on the set of files / directories involved in a patch, gerrit >> automatically adds reviewers >> O Email patch review requests w/ subject lines of the form [CODE-REVIEW] or >> some such >> O Send email "to" the area owner(s), "cc" committers [who should know when >> folks are unavailable, etc.] >> O Area owners score patches. >> O If they're also committers, feel free to +2. >> O Otherwise, email committers when satisfied to ensure timely merges >> >> We know that gerrit can automatically add reviewers (see also "fd.io JJB"). >> >> This scheme depends on identifying folks that we trust to enforce a certain >> level of "truth, justice, and the right way," but it should help a lot in >> terms of our current committer scaling problem. > > Wouldn't this be a self-selecting bunch, assuming it is the people who > authored the code for the area in the first place? > > Thanks for fleshing this out! > > I think the added emails would help a lot in identifying who's responsible > for what action. Currently we're suffering a bit from the bystander effect. > > I'd be happy to have a first go at a maintainers file. I suggest we inherit > the linux kernel format? > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/linux/MAINTAINERS
I really support idea of putting MAINTAINERS file and using this standard format, unless somebody can point us to law or other legal act which denies use of word “maintainer” in the fd.io. _______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
