Expanding pulpcore committers

Development
#1

At today’s pulpcore meeting two things were observed:

  • It would be good to have more committers, especially with David no longer being a committer
  • There are Subject Matter Experts (SME) for things in pulpcore who do not have the commit bit and can’t give ack/nack reviews for components they are the SME for.

The proposal discussed was to revise the commit bit process so that any SME of a component of pulpcore have it. We would do this by adding them to the pulpcore team.

What does this mean in practice? We came up with the following list of folks who would be joining the pulpcore team:

  • Gerrod - SME for Roles machinery, RBAC, and Caching features
  • Pavel - SME for Alternate Content Sources features
  • Grant - SME for import/export features

Please leave feedback on this thread in favor of this policy, and if these changes (or others) are the right changes to make given this policy.

4 Likes
#2

Sounds like a plan to me!

#3

This was the plan I had pushed for before when people were out for family leave in 2020. I remember we were down two committers at one point. But I remember there being pushback then.

I think the concern that was raised was that a PR could be approved by two people who might not have expertise in the area that the PR is changing. Am I remember this correctly?

#4

This is also how I remember it, with myself being one of the holdouts. For me, one of the things that changed is that now a variety of the areas of pulpcore have been written and maintained by non-committers. Once I realized three SMEs don’t have the ability to even review work in their areas it became clear (for me) we needed something to change. Maybe we should have done it when you suggested it then.

1 Like
#5

No worries. I definitely felt the pain of waiting for PRs to merge while working on features like ACS. So +1 to adding more committers.

#6

By the way, if you all do find that PRs being reviewed/merged by non-SMEs is becoming an issue, it might be worth looking into code owners:

#7

Why call it a commit bit, instead of what it really should be called “Merge Access”?

1 Like
#8

+1 to give to these folks commit bit/write/merge access.

#9

No concerns about this proposal, I do want to point out that we might want to come up with a way to clearly communicate when these areas of change. Or perhaps come up with an easy rule such as feature leads automatically get it after feature merging?

1 Like
#10

While being one of the originators of that idea, and voting for it, i still want to emphasize, that we don’t want to force the repo-write-permission on any contributor IMHO. So the automatic application for the merge capability should still contain and honor the question: “Are you ready to take that piece of responsibility?”

#11

I’ve expanded write access to pulpcore. The following are the people and their areas of expertise:

Fabricio - CI
Grant - import/export
Gerrod - redis caching
Pavel - alternate content sources

#12

on pulpcore I’m the SME for OpenAPI/bindings,

but the CI/CD is part of another discussion where people on CI/CD team should have write access to all repositories

3 Likes