PR duty

rikki cattermole rikki at cattermole.co.nz
Wed Apr 4 05:35:34 UTC 2018


On 04/04/2018 5:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Hi folks, I was thinking of the following.
> 
> To keep the PR queue trim and in good shape, we'd need at least one 
> full-time engineer minding it. I've done that occasionally, and the 
> queue size got shorter, but I couldn't do much else during that time.
> 
> I was thinking, we can't afford a full-time engineer, and even if we 
> did, we'd probably have other important matters for that engineer as 
> well. However, what we can afford - and indeed already benefit from - is 
> a quantum of time from each of many volunteers. By organizing that time 
> better we may be able to get more output. Here's what I'm thinking.
> 
> Let's define a "PR duty" role that is one week long for each of a pool 
> of volunteers. During that week, the person on PR duty focuses on 
> minding github queues - merge trivial PRs, ping authors of old PRs, 
> email decision makers for specific items in PRs, etc. Then the week ends 
> and the role is handed off to the next person in the pool.
> 
> A calendar maintained by an impartial person - maybe we can ask Mike - 
> would keep track of everything.
> 
> The most obvious candidates for PR duty engineers would be the most 
> prolific contributors in the respective repositories.
> 
> One question would be how many distinct pools/tracks we should have. 
> Presumably someone fluent with phobos is not necessarily fluent with 
> dmd. So probably we need at least two tracks:
> 
> * dmd
> * everything else (druntime, phobos, tools, site)

Compiler specific stuff, system specific and finally general e.g. 
bindings may need to be separated roles for druntime.

Compiler specific can merge with dmd, that just leaves system and 
"other" which probably can be merged.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list