Re: [DISCUSS] CODEOWNERS mechanism feedback

2021-03-25 Thread Nabarun Nag
%3D%7C1000&sdata=VH1ntlmmHR2fUaNiylYq6LpmGhOBt7UKXNWVTCn919c%3D&reserved=0 BR, Mario Šalje: Anthony Baker Poslano: 17. ožujka 2021. 18:08 Prima: dev@geode.apache.org Predmet: Re: [DISCUSS] CODEOWNERS mechanism feedback I think for an active, healthy project comm

Re: [DISCUSS] CODEOWNERS mechanism feedback

2021-03-17 Thread Anthony Baker
I think for an active, healthy project community we need to balance two things that are somewhat oppositional: make it easy to contribute and ensure the project meets the needs of our users for stability and robust behaviors in the face of failures. > On Mar 17, 2021, at 9:45 AM, Jacob Barrett

Re: [DISCUSS] CODEOWNERS mechanism feedback

2021-03-17 Thread Jacob Barrett
> On Mar 17, 2021, at 9:38 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > > "the review process is taking longer now. " > I agree that the review process is taking a bit longer, but that is the price > I believe needs to be paid to improve the probability of good quality code is > being merged to Geode. More eyes

Re: [DISCUSS] CODEOWNERS mechanism feedback

2021-03-17 Thread Anthony Baker
Hi Alberto! I haven’t looked at PR review throughput metrics. I know that is certainly an interesting measure to keep an eye on w.r.t to the CODEOWNERS / CODEWATCHERS processes. I think another equally interesting metric is the “quality” of PR reviews. This is difficult to measure but you co

Re: [DISCUSS] CODEOWNERS mechanism feedback

2021-03-17 Thread Nabarun Nag
Hi Alberto, Here are some of my opinions on this matter. "the review process is taking longer now. " I agree that the review process is taking a bit longer, but that is the price I believe needs to be paid to improve the probability of good quality code is being merged to Geode. More eyes on th