[Pulp-dev] Pulp Code Owners
mkovacik at redhat.com
Tue Aug 14 15:13:00 UTC 2018
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:05 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
for this to work there has to be some initial set of SMEs to be put in the
code ownership file, correct?
Is it going to be the commit bit owners by default?
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:36 AM Bryan Kearney <bkearney at redhat.com>
>> 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/
>> > # 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
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev