[Matplotlib-devel] Proposal to amend the PR merge rules
Antony Lee
antony.lee at institutoptique.fr
Tue Jan 15 16:44:59 EST 2019
Eric,
Neither the ttc font, nor the pdf/ps common code PRs actually touch any
"complex" point regarding fonts or pdf/ps. I have described the ttc font
in my previous message; the pdf/ps PR is really just, look, these two
classes share 80 lines worth of code that's literally copy-pasted, let's
just put that in a common parent class and inherit from it.
Conversely, one font-related PR for which I actually have low hopes of
getting properly reviewed (except on an "sure, I trust you" basis) is
https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/12928, which actually touches
a rather complex point about font encodings (some of which I had to clarify
on the FreeType mailing list). (If anyone wants to have a look at it,
though... :p)
Antony
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:36 PM Eric Firing <efiring at hawaii.edu> wrote:
> Antony,
>
> Your examples illustrate that the problem is often that we don't have
> enough people who understand some areas, like fonts and pdf/ps file
> formats, to get 2 thorough and knowledgeable reviews in a reasonable time.
>
> I'm fine with your proposed rule. It should help at least a little bit.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On 2019/01/15 9:11 AM, Antony Lee wrote:
> > I'm obviously more aware of my own PRs, so here are a few I'd have put
> > up for single-review-merge (note that it's quite possible that they'd
> > have attracted more attention and gotten merged faster under that
> > system; that's also the goal...). Obviously other devs may think about
> > other PRs that could have benefitted from the same process.
> >
> > - https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/9787 adds support for
> > the ttc font format (requested since 2014) for png/svg output (that's
> > provided basically for free by FreeType) but not for pdf/ps (that would
> > require more difficult changes). The entire PR comes down to:
> > * adding "ttc" as an extension that should be treated like
> "ttf"/"otf",
> > * adding error handling to pdf/ps to signal these formats are not
> > supported there,
> > * tests.
> > The PR sat open for 10 months before a first positive review (because
> > no one cares about fonts, I guess) and took another 3 months to attract
> > a second positive review.
> >
> > - https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/12472 does a fairly
> > trivial fix to fontList.json to make it reusable for Matplotlibs
> > installed in different venvs, got a positive review in one day and
> > waited another 2.5 months for a second positive review.
> >
> > - https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/9867 deduplicates
> > completely duplicated code between the pdf and ps backends, mostly for
> > maintainability's sake; it took 7.5 months (and 5 rebases due to
> > conflicts) to get a first positive review and another 6 (and around as
> > many rebases) to get a second one.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > As for the specifics (as I see it):
> > - Someone opens a PR, it gets a positive review, no negative review, and
> > no activity occurs for two weeks (significant activity -- excluding
> > trivial chat on the thread).
> > - Sponsor (first reviewer, or author if a committer) *pings* all devs by
> > mentioning @matplotlib/developers on the PR thread with the intent to
> > single-review-merge, and labels the PR accordingly.
> > - The PR can still be reviewed/merged/rejected by the normal review
> > process. However, if no one explicitly opposes the merge within two
> > weeks, anyone can merge it at that point (including by self-merge).
> >
> > I would not exclude all API changes from the process. For example,
> >
> https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/13173/commits/e90d264f3e5a263ef57243a2af86b46ab74ccc16
> > deprecates (and prepares for deletion) two parameters to imshow() that
> > have had no effect since 2006. Let's pretend for a second this commit
> > was a single independent PR (and not an example to showcase the
> > parameter-deprecating decorator...); if it started being forgotten I
> > would have proposed it for single-review-merge (again, note that if
> > you're worried about the change, you don't need to reject the PR; you
> > can just say, I think this API change needs to be approved by a second
> > reviewer and that'll block the single-review-merge just as well).
> >
> > Antony
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 7:46 PM Nelle Varoquaux
> > <nelle.varoquaux at gmail.com <mailto:nelle.varoquaux at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > The proposed scheme by Paul doesn't seem reasonable to me. Core
> > contributor A or committers needs to actively reach out to other
> > core contributors: labeling is not enough IMO.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 10:37, Jody Klymak <jklymak at uvic.ca
> > <mailto:jklymak at uvic.ca>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 10:20, Paul Hobson <pmhobson at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:pmhobson at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think this would be a good policy as well. Can I get some
> >> clarification on the flow? The way I understand it:
> >>
> >> 1) Someone (committer, contributor, or first-timer) opens a
> >> simple PR
> >> 2) Committer A reviews it, adds a "single-review-merge" label,
> >> then digitally walks away
> >> 3) No less than two weeks later, Committer B sees the PR,
> >> notices the label, opens it up, and merges without reviewing.
> >
> > If there is a Committer B, I think they should at least look at
> > the PR to make sure it doesn’t have any hidden API changes, or
> > introduce anything hostile.
> >
> > The point here is that getting the third person to look at a PR
> > is proving quite difficult, and if the rest of the folks with
> > the commit bit haven’t looked at a PR for a month, even after
> > being warned, then silence indicates consent.
> >
> > Note that only folks with the commit bit can label PRs, so
> > anyone flagging a PR like this is implicitly trusted to not be
> > wreaking havoc, and not doing this for major changes. Since we
> > all curate our own PRs, I rather expect that the PR contributor
> > will often be the person who adds the flag. Whether we want to
> > allow a self-merge at that point is up for debate, but if not,
> > then folks need to get in the habit of looking at old flagged
> > PRs and merging them.
> >
> > I think a huge problem we have is the LIFO default sort of the
> > github PR queue, and that any PR not on the first page might as
> > well be closed for all the attention it will get without
> > constant nagging.
> >
> > Cheers, Jody
> >
> >> Does that capture a successful "single-review-merge" lifecycle?
> >> -paul
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:57 AM Nelle Varoquaux
> >> <nelle.varoquaux at gmail.com <mailto:nelle.varoquaux at gmail.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Overall, I think this is a good idea, but I would like
> >> specifics on what "uncontroversial but uninteresting" PR
> >> mean. IMO, that should exclude any PR with API changes.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> N
> >>
> >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 06:00, Antony Lee
> >> <anntzer.lee at gmail.com <mailto:anntzer.lee at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> During the weekly dev call, I proposed to amend the PR
> >> merge rules, following an initial comment on Github
> >> [
> https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/13173#issuecomment-453921220].
>
> >> There was general agreement among the devs present
> >> (Tom, Hannah, Jody, and myself), so I'm putting it
> >> here for discussion. The objective of this change is
> >> to prevent "uncontroversial but uninteresting" PRs
> >> from falling into oblivion, and try to decrease the
> >> size of the open PR stack.
> >>
> >> The current rule is that a PR needs positive reviews
> >> (from two committers, and excluding the author if a
> >> committer) to be merged, except that doc-only PRs
> >> (docstrings, rst) only needs a single positive review.
> >>
> >> I am proposing that, if a (non-doc) PR already has one
> >> positive review, but no activity on that PR has
> >> occurred for two weeks (exact time interval up to
> >> bikeshedding) [Jody suggests: and the PR has 100% code
> >> coverage], then a committer (either the first
> >> reviewer, or the author if a committer) can suggest
> >> that it be merged on the basis of that single review.
> >> To do so, the "sponsor" should ping all developers
> >> (@matplotlib/developers) on that issue indicating that
> >> intent, and add a "single-review-merge" label on the
> >> PR (so that these PRs can easily be found).
> >> Committers are encouraged to review the PR to accept
> >> and merge it or reject it or request changes on it;
> >> but they can also just indicate that they consider the
> >> PR sufficiently complex that a proper second review is
> >> needed before merging, or request an extension, etc.
> >> To do so they should still leave a "reject" review,
> >> even if just saying "objecting to single-review
> >> merged; anyone can dismiss after a second review".
> >> However, if within another two weeks, no committer
> >> voiced any objection (explicitly, i.e. by rejecting),
> >> then the PR can indeed be merged on the basis of that
> >> single review.
> >>
> >> To avoid overwhelming the system, any committer can
> >> only "sponsor" a single PR at a time.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Antony
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> >> Matplotlib-devel at python.org
> >> <mailto:Matplotlib-devel at python.org>
> >>
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> >> Matplotlib-devel at python.org
> >> <mailto:Matplotlib-devel at python.org>
> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> >> Matplotlib-devel at python.org <mailto:Matplotlib-devel at python.org
> >
> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
> >
> > --
> > Jody Klymak
> > http://web.uvic.ca/~jklymak/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> > Matplotlib-devel at python.org <mailto:Matplotlib-devel at python.org>
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> > Matplotlib-devel at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Matplotlib-devel at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/matplotlib-devel/attachments/20190115/fab67350/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Matplotlib-devel
mailing list