[Pulp-dev] Pulp Code Owners

[Daniel Alley]

>
> Daniel, you are correct. The only caveat is that PRs can’t be merged if
> they touch a file owned by a team and haven’t been approved by that team.


Actually that's what I meant.  In that case we just need to be careful
about getting into a situation where all 2-3-4 of the code owners are out
on leave and there's a must-fix bug in some piece of owned code.

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:26 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> The relevant party could either be a subset of the commit bit owners (e.g.
> task group) or a set of people who don’t have the commit bit (e.g. QE). See
> the team examples from my original email.
>
> Daniel, you are correct. The only caveat is that PRs can’t be merged if
> they touch a file owned by a team and haven’t been approved by that team.
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:35 AM Milan Kovacik <mkovacik at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +0 who's the relevant party if not the commit bit owner?
>> +1 for commit bit owners receiving automatic notification to review
>>
>> --
>> milan
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:56 AM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1. My understanding is that this will not directly limit who can review
>>> or merge code, but should streamline the review process by notifying
>>> relevant parties?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:29 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have come up with initial proposal of how to use code owners feature
>>>> in Pulp. Feedback on the initial proposal below is welcome. I will try to
>>>> collect the feedback and open a PUP by the end of the week. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # Problem Statement
>>>>
>>>> For Pulp's review process, there are several areas we could improve:
>>>>
>>>> 1. It’s not always clear who should review files. Over time we have
>>>> developed subject matter experts for different areas of the codebase, but
>>>> these are not codified anywhere. It would be useful for us to define teams
>>>> need to review projects using code owners.
>>>>
>>>> 2. PRs go unnoticed. Github has a request-review feature, but only
>>>> members of the github organization can click 'request review' button. It
>>>> would be great if when a PR is opened people automatically received PR
>>>> review requests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # Team Examples
>>>>
>>>> Functional Tests - The QE Team should be code owners of functional
>>>> tests that test core or core-maintained plugins
>>>> The Tasking System  - bmbouter, daviddavis, and dalley are the SME in
>>>> this area
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # Solution
>>>>
>>>> 1. Configure the code-owners feature of Github (
>>>> https://blog.github.com/2017-07-06-introducing-code-owners/). It will
>>>> allow a team of 2 or more people to be notified and asked for review when a
>>>> PR modifies a file within a certain area of the code.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Require code-owner review to merge. This is described in this
>>>> section: https://blog.github.com/2017-07-06-introducing-code-owners/
>>>> #an-extra-layer-of-code-security
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # Process
>>>>
>>>> The code owner role is not related to the commit bit. It's designed to
>>>> get better reviews. Well reviewed work can be confidently merged by anyone
>>>> with the commit bit.
>>>>
>>>> To make a change to code owners, open a PR with the changes, and call
>>>> for a lazy consensus vote by mailing list. Similar to the PUP decision
>>>> making process, voting must be open for 10 days, and the committers of the
>>>> respective repository are voting.
>>>>
>>>> The code owners file itself should be owned by the core committers of
>>>> the repository.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180814/fa33d545/attachment.htm>