[Pulp-dev] Pulp Code Owners

[David Davis]

The code owner feature in Github requests reviews from code owners when a
PR is opened. This both notifies the responsible team when they have a PR
to review and also makes it clear who should be reviewing a particular PR
so that the PR author can follow up with those people.

David


On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:36 AM Bryan Kearney <bkearney at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 08/13/2018 05:29 PM, David Davis wrote:
> >
> >
> > # 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.
> >
> If the problem statement is a slowdown in PRs, how does limiting who can
> do the review/merge solve the issue?
>
> -- bk
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180814/49839049/attachment.htm>