osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (3) - Review Tooling


Hi Fabian,

+1 for your proposal.

For the downside, I think after adding the review process template,
the pull request template would be high level into 3 parts:

1. Greeting and community guiding.
2. User completed template.
3. Reviewer complete template.

If we can visually separate them, i.e., help a new contributor regard the
whole template into 3 parts, I think this downside is not so critical. For
some previous attempt, see also [1].

Best,
tison.

[1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6722


vino yang <yanghua1127@xxxxxxxxx> 于2018年10月17日周三 上午9:57写道:

> +1,
>
> Agree to use the PR template.
>
> Fabian Hueske <fhueske@xxxxxxxxx> 于2018年10月17日周三 上午12:48写道:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Instead of manually adding the review progress template as a comment to
> > every new PR, we could also append it to the PR description template.
> > The benefits would be:
> > + no need to add it manually since it is automatically added to each PR
> > + the template is versioned in the Flink Git repository
> > + contributors can learn about the review process before opening a PR
> >
> > On the downside, the template grows a bit at the end.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Best, Fabian
> >
> > Am Mo., 24. Sep. 2018 um 15:51 Uhr schrieb Fabian Hueske <
> > fhueske@xxxxxxxxx
> > >:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Coming back to the original topic of the thread: How to implement the
> > > guided review process.
> > >
> > > I am in favor of starting with a low-tech solution.
> > > We design a review template with a checkbox for the five questions (see
> > > [1]) and a link to the detailed description of the review process ([1]
> > will
> > > be added to flink.apache.org).
> > > Once a PR is opened, anybody (the PR author, a committer, any reviewer,
> > > ...) can post the review template as a comment. Ideally this happens
> > > shortly after the PR was opened.
> > > If we find it necessary, we can later add a bot to automate posting the
> > > template as comment.
> > >
> > > Once the template is posted, the PR can be reviewed by following the
> > > process and answering the template questions.
> > > When all boxes are ticked off, the PR can be merged.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Fabian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk/
> > >
> > >
> > > Am Mo., 24. Sep. 2018 um 12:27 Uhr schrieb vino yang <
> > > yanghua1127@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> About "valuable", I agree with @Aljoscha that there is no clear
> standard
> > >> of
> > >> judgment about "valuable".
> > >> But I think the priority may be a more specific indicator, because the
> > >> JIRA
> > >> issue also has a "Priority" attribute.
> > >> Maybe we can tag the PR, for example: use the "Label" function of
> > github,
> > >> or add the "[Priority]" tag to the PR title?
> > >>
> > >> Regarding the closure of inactive PR, I feel that it is more cautious
> to
> > >> shut down artificially.
> > >> Whether it is possible to explicitly assign a PR to a committer
> familiar
> > >> with the module, which will reduce the unnecessary ping operation of
> > many
> > >> contributors.
> > >> Because some people don't know which committer is familiar with the
> > module
> > >> he changed.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, vino.
> > >>
> > >> Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@xxxxxxxxxx> 于2018年9月24日周一 下午5:03写道:
> > >>
> > >> > In Beam, we have a bot that regularly nags people about inactive PRs
> > and
> > >> > also closes them after long inactivity.
> > >> >
> > >> > And we use the github feature for assigning reviewers in github.
> > >> >
> > >> > Sometimes it is hard for people to judge how "valuable" a PR is.
> Maybe
> > >> > some knowledgable people could mark PRs as valuable if they think
> > it's a
> > >> > good addition but if they don't have the review bandwith. Other
> people
> > >> can
> > >> > then search for valuable PRs that don't yet a reviewer and
> > review/merge
> > >> > them.
> > >> >
> > >> > Aljoscha
> > >> >
> > >> > > On 22. Sep 2018, at 04:25, vino yang <yanghua1127@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hi Jin Sun,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Earlier this year, I also had these questions when I started
> > >> contributing
> > >> > > code to Flink. In fact, the timing of a PR being reviewed will be
> > >> related
> > >> > > to the priority of the problem solved by the PR.
> > >> > > And when you indicate the module to which it belongs in the title
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > > PR, like "[FLINK-xxxx][module] XXXX", the person in charge of the
> > >> > relevant
> > >> > > module or the contributor who is familiar with it will find it
> > easier.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To Stephan:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Maybe we can open a separate mail thread (after all, the current
> > >> > discussion
> > >> > > thread is about a specific topic) to hear the contributors about
> PR
> > >> > review
> > >> > > related questions and doubts. Perhaps some of their feedback will
> > help
> > >> > the
> > >> > > community improve the way they review.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks, vino.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jin Sun <isunjin@xxxxxxxxx> 于2018年9月22日周六 上午6:40写道:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> As a new contributor I cared about how to make my contribution
> > >> accepted
> > >> > by
> > >> > >> the community, some questions:
> > >> > >> 1) When will it get reviewed? Is there a rule about review
> > timeline?
> > >> > >> 2) There are long backlog of pull requests, What happened if a
> pull
> > >> > >> request not get noticed, do we have some mechanism to make it
> > moving
> > >> > >> forward, like a pull request will be assigned a owner of
> reviewer?
> > >> Or we
> > >> > >> have a review queue and a pull request will be get handled
> fairly.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Jin
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> On Sep 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Hi all!
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> This thread is dedicated to discuss the tooling we want to use
> for
> > >> the
> > >> > >>> reviews.
> > >> > >>> It is spun out of the proposal *"A more structured approach to
> > >> reviews
> > >> > >> and
> > >> > >>> contributions".*
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> *Suggestions brought up so far*
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> *Use comments / template with checklist*
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> - Easy to do
> > >> > >>> - Manual, a bit of reviewer overhead, reviewers needs to know
> the
> > >> > >> process
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> *Use a bot *
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> - Automatically add the review questions to each new PR
> > >> > >>> - Further details?
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> *Use GitHub labels*
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> - Searchable
> > >> > >>> - possibly not obvious to new contributors
> > >> > >>> - Any restrictions? Do members need to apply at ASF infra to
> have
> > >> > >>> permissions to edit github labels?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>