during the last face to face meeting the idea that assigning every PR
(issue) to someone to help increase the throughput came up.
The underlying idea is that someone should always feel responsible for
an issue so that it does not rot in the tracker.
Being responsible includes the possibility of reassigning issues to
someone else. One implication of this is we could have default
assignees who act as schedulers.
What this entails and how it works is up for experiment/discussion.
- good idea?
- both issues and pull requests?
- guidelines?
+1 - I've already assigned most of the open issues for the next milestone to
people.
- both issues and pull requests?
I asked myself the same question, when assigning the issues yesterday. I think
it's a good idea to have someone assigned to a PR, too. In most cases the
creator of the PR will be in charge to maintain it anyway, but having a second
person managing the review process looks like a good idea, too.
- guidelines?
I'd say that whoever creates an issue or PR should assign someone to it. If
the chosen person isn't able to manage the issue, she or he is responsible to
re-assign it. It's probably also advisable that the assignee must acknowledge
the assignment in order to avoid "dead" assignees.
+1 - I've already assigned most of the open issues for the next milestone to
people.
Though it is not possible to assign more than 2 people.
+1
- both issues and pull requests?
I asked myself the same question, when assigning the issues yesterday. I think
it's a good idea to have someone assigned to a PR, too. In most cases the
creator of the PR will be in charge to maintain it anyway, but having a second
person managing the review process looks like a good idea, too.
I also think, the person creating the PR should be mainly the one
responsible to maintain it. But i would help to have a mechanism to
trigger others to review it when nothing happens after a while...
- guidelines?
I'd say that whoever creates an issue or PR should assign someone to it. If
the chosen person isn't able to manage the issue, she or he is responsible to
re-assign it. It's probably also advisable that the assignee must acknowledge
the assignment in order to avoid "dead" assignees.
>>> - good idea?
>> +1 - I've already assigned most of the open issues for the next milestone to
>> people.
> Though it is not possible to assign more than 2 people.
There are creator and assignee roles, so up to 2 persons can feel
responsible.
>>> - both issues and pull requests?
>> I asked myself the same question, when assigning the issues yesterday. I think
>> it's a good idea to have someone assigned to a PR, too. In most cases the
>> creator of the PR will be in charge to maintain it anyway, but having a second
>> person managing the review process looks like a good idea, too.
I also think, the person creating the PR should be mainly the one
responsible to maintain it. But i
Freudian typo?
would help to have a mechanism to trigger others to review it when
nothing happens after a while...
I guess someone(TM) could write a python script (or whatever language
someone else(TM) prefers) that takes care of assigning default
assignees and stuff like that. Maybe it's possible to evaluate the
recent activity as well. There could be load balancing and keyword
filters...
