Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

What about some sort of script that detects MR older than x time without a reviewer, and asks a group of people to take a look. On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 19:36, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

I wonder if it would alleviate the concerns to have a ghc-maintainers mailing list. This is distinct from ghc-devs, in that the maintainers have GHC as their day job. It would explicitly invite email from folks struggling to figure out how to contribute. I don't mean to create more mail for Ben et al, but having an explicit "seek help here" direction is nice. And (at least for me) mailing a list for help feels more comfortable than emailing an individual.

Richard

On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:30 PM, Ben Gamari wrote:

Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes:

| If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers | for a new contributors patch | then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new | contributors.

Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to convey. Thanks for highlighting it.

You'd like the maintainers to have an *obligation* to cause someone to produce a good review on every patch. Here's the worst-case scenario: a well-meaning but inexperienced person produces a stream of large, ill-thought-out, and mostly wrong patches. To give a guarantee of high quality reviews of those patches amounts to a blank cheque on the time of volunteers working mostly in their spare time.

Now, of course, that's an extreme scenario. But that's why I'm keen to avoid making it an unconditional obligation that the few maintainers must discharge.

I don’t think there is really a difference of opinion here. Of course we welcome patches; of course everyone will try to help find reviewers if they are lacking!

So how about this - the author nominates reviewers - if he or she finds difficulty in doing so, or the reviewers s/he nominates are unresponsive, then he or she should ask for help - maintainers should make efforts to help

In my mind there has always been a (perhaps too implicit) promise that maintainers are always present in the background and happy to help in finding reviewers if asked (and perhaps even if not, if it seems a contributor is lost).

Perhaps we should make this more explicit?

Cheers,

- Ben

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs