[DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps

[Stephan Ewen]

Hi all!

This thread is dedicated to discuss the specific review steps and answers
we want to have during reviews.
It is spun out of the proposal *"A more structured approach to reviews and
contributions".*

Please keep this thread focused on the review steps, NOT on the tooling
(bot, comment/template, labels, ...). There will be a separate thread for
that.


*Discussion do far*

There seems to be almost consensus in the basic approach, with open
questions about details as outlined below.


*(1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*

  - Do we want to make "(3) Is the contribution described well" the first
item?


*(2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
feature?*

  - When one committer +1s the question and no other person voices
concerns, is this consensus? (classical lazy consensus)

*(3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention*

  - Also tagged by the committers that drive the "should this be added"
consensus
  - Should we create a wiki page of "component experts"?




*Original Review Guide Proposal*

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9l
Vhk/edit?usp=sharing




















































*How to Review Contributions------------------------------This guide is for
all committers and contributors that want to help with reviewing
contributions. Thank you for your effort - good reviews are one the most
important and crucial parts of an open source project. This guide should
help the community to make reviews such that: - Contributors have a good
contribution experience- Reviews are structured and check all important
aspects of a contribution- Make sure we keep a high code quality in Flink-
We avoid situations where contributors and reviewers spend a lot of time to
refine a contribution that gets rejected laterReview ChecklistEvery review
needs to check the following five aspects. We encourage to check these
aspects in order, to avoid spending time on detailed code quality reviews
when there is not yet consensus that a feature or change should be actually
be added.(1) Is there consensus whether the change of feature should go
into to Flink?For bug fixes, this needs to be checked only in case it
requires bigger changes or might break existing programs and
setups.Ideally, this question is already answered from a JIRA issue or the
dev-list discussion, except in cases of bug fixes and small lightweight
additions/extensions. In that case, this question can be immediately marked
as resolved. For pull requests that are created without prior consensus,
this question needs to be answered as part of the review.The decision
whether the change should go into Flink needs to take the following aspects
into consideration: - Does the contribution alter the behavior of features
or components in a way that it may break previous users’ programs and
setups? If yes, there needs to be a discussion and agreement that this
change is desirable. - Does the contribution conceptually fit well into
Flink? Is it too much of special case such that it makes things more
complicated for the common case, or bloats the abstractions / APIs? - Does
the feature fit well into Flink’s architecture? Will it scale and keep
Flink flexible for the future, or will the feature restrict Flink in the
future? - Is the feature a significant new addition (rather than an
improvement to an existing part)? If yes, will the Flink community commit
to maintaining this feature? - Does the feature produce added value for
Flink users or developers? Or does it introduce risk of regression without
adding relevant user or developer benefit?All of these questions should be
answerable from the description/discussion in JIRA and Pull Request,
without looking at the code.(2) Does the contribution need attention from
some specific committers and is there time commitment from these
committers?Some changes require attention and approval from specific
committers. For example, changes in parts that are either very performance
sensitive, or have a critical impact on distributed coordination and fault
tolerance need input by a committer that is deeply familiar with the
component.As a rule of thumb, this is the case when the Pull Request
description answers one of the questions in the template section “Does this
pull request potentially affect one of the following parts” with ‘yes’.This
question can be answered with - Does not need specific attention- Needs
specific attention for X (X can be for example checkpointing, jobmanager,
etc.).- Has specific attention for X by @commiterA, @contributorBIf the
pull request needs specific attention, one of the tagged
committers/contributors should give the final approval.(3) Is the
contribution described well?Check whether the contribution is sufficiently
well described to support a good review. Trivial changes and fixes do not
need a long description. Any pull request that changes functionality or
behavior needs to describe the big picture of these changes, so that
reviews know what to look for (and don’t have to dig through the code to
hopefully understand what the change does).Changes that require longer
descriptions are ideally based on a prior design discussion in the mailing
list or in JIRA and can simply link to there or copy the description from
there.(4) Does the implementation follow the right overall
approach/architecture?Is this the best approach to implement the fix or
feature, or are there other approaches that would be easier, more robust,
or more maintainable?This question should be answerable from the Pull
Request description (or the linked JIRA) as much as possible.We recommend
to check this before diving into the details of commenting on individual
parts of the change.(5) Is the overall code quality good, meeting standard
we want to maintain in Flink?This is the detailed code review of the actual
changes, covering: - Are the changes doing what is described in the design
document or PR description?- Does the code follow the right software
engineering practices? It the code correct, robust, maintainable,
testable?- Are the change performance aware, when changing a performance
sensitive part?- Are the changes sufficiently covered by tests?- Are the
tests executing fast?- Does the code format follow Flink’s checkstyle
pattern?- Does the code avoid to introduce additional compiler
warnings?Some code style guidelines can be found in the [Flink Code Style
Page](https://flink.apache.org/contribute-code.html#code-style
<https://flink.apache.org/contribute-code.html#code-style>)*

[Fabian Hueske-2]

Thanks for separating the threads Stephan!

(1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
+1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
first.

(2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
feature?
+1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1

(3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention

I think this question can be answered by the committer who accepts the
proposed change (question 1 of the proposal).
IMO, we can add a page about component experts if we find that we need it.

Cheers,
Fabian

Am Do., 20. Sep. 2018 um 21:53 Uhr schrieb Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>:

> Hi all!
>
> This thread is dedicated to discuss the specific review steps and answers
> we want to have during reviews.
> It is spun out of the proposal *"A more structured approach to reviews and
> contributions".*
>
> Please keep this thread focused on the review steps, NOT on the tooling
> (bot, comment/template, labels, ...). There will be a separate thread for
> that.
>
>
> *Discussion do far*
>
> There seems to be almost consensus in the basic approach, with open
> questions about details as outlined below.
>
>
> *(1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
>
>   - Do we want to make "(3) Is the contribution described well" the first
> item?
>
>
> *(2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
> feature?*
>
>   - When one committer +1s the question and no other person voices
> concerns, is this consensus? (classical lazy consensus)
>
> *(3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention*
>
>   - Also tagged by the committers that drive the "should this be added"
> consensus
>   - Should we create a wiki page of "component experts"?
>
>
>
>
> *Original Review Guide Proposal*
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9l
> Vhk/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk/edit?usp=sharing>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *How to Review Contributions------------------------------This guide is for
> all committers and contributors that want to help with reviewing
> contributions. Thank you for your effort - good reviews are one the most
> important and crucial parts of an open source project. This guide should
> help the community to make reviews such that: - Contributors have a good
> contribution experience- Reviews are structured and check all important
> aspects of a contribution- Make sure we keep a high code quality in Flink-
> We avoid situations where contributors and reviewers spend a lot of time to
> refine a contribution that gets rejected laterReview ChecklistEvery review
> needs to check the following five aspects. We encourage to check these
> aspects in order, to avoid spending time on detailed code quality reviews
> when there is not yet consensus that a feature or change should be actually
> be added.(1) Is there consensus whether the change of feature should go
> into to Flink?For bug fixes, this needs to be checked only in case it
> requires bigger changes or might break existing programs and
> setups.Ideally, this question is already answered from a JIRA issue or the
> dev-list discussion, except in cases of bug fixes and small lightweight
> additions/extensions. In that case, this question can be immediately marked
> as resolved. For pull requests that are created without prior consensus,
> this question needs to be answered as part of the review.The decision
> whether the change should go into Flink needs to take the following aspects
> into consideration: - Does the contribution alter the behavior of features
> or components in a way that it may break previous users’ programs and
> setups? If yes, there needs to be a discussion and agreement that this
> change is desirable. - Does the contribution conceptually fit well into
> Flink? Is it too much of special case such that it makes things more
> complicated for the common case, or bloats the abstractions / APIs? - Does
> the feature fit well into Flink’s architecture? Will it scale and keep
> Flink flexible for the future, or will the feature restrict Flink in the
> future? - Is the feature a significant new addition (rather than an
> improvement to an existing part)? If yes, will the Flink community commit
> to maintaining this feature? - Does the feature produce added value for
> Flink users or developers? Or does it introduce risk of regression without
> adding relevant user or developer benefit?All of these questions should be
> answerable from the description/discussion in JIRA and Pull Request,
> without looking at the code.(2) Does the contribution need attention from
> some specific committers and is there time commitment from these
> committers?Some changes require attention and approval from specific
> committers. For example, changes in parts that are either very performance
> sensitive, or have a critical impact on distributed coordination and fault
> tolerance need input by a committer that is deeply familiar with the
> component.As a rule of thumb, this is the case when the Pull Request
> description answers one of the questions in the template section “Does this
> pull request potentially affect one of the following parts” with ‘yes’.This
> question can be answered with - Does not need specific attention- Needs
> specific attention for X (X can be for example checkpointing, jobmanager,
> etc.).- Has specific attention for X by @commiterA, @contributorBIf the
> pull request needs specific attention, one of the tagged
> committers/contributors should give the final approval.(3) Is the
> contribution described well?Check whether the contribution is sufficiently
> well described to support a good review. Trivial changes and fixes do not
> need a long description. Any pull request that changes functionality or
> behavior needs to describe the big picture of these changes, so that
> reviews know what to look for (and don’t have to dig through the code to
> hopefully understand what the change does).Changes that require longer
> descriptions are ideally based on a prior design discussion in the mailing
> list or in JIRA and can simply link to there or copy the description from
> there.(4) Does the implementation follow the right overall
> approach/architecture?Is this the best approach to implement the fix or
> feature, or are there other approaches that would be easier, more robust,
> or more maintainable?This question should be answerable from the Pull
> Request description (or the linked JIRA) as much as possible.We recommend
> to check this before diving into the details of commenting on individual
> parts of the change.(5) Is the overall code quality good, meeting standard
> we want to maintain in Flink?This is the detailed code review of the actual
> changes, covering: - Are the changes doing what is described in the design
> document or PR description?- Does the code follow the right software
> engineering practices? It the code correct, robust, maintainable,
> testable?- Are the change performance aware, when changing a performance
> sensitive part?- Are the changes sufficiently covered by tests?- Are the
> tests executing fast?- Does the code format follow Flink’s checkstyle
> pattern?- Does the code avoid to introduce additional compiler
> warnings?Some code style guidelines can be found in the [Flink Code Style
> Page](https://flink.apache.org/contribute-code.html#code-style
> <https://flink.apache.org/contribute-code.html#code-style>)*
>

[tison]

Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!

(1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
+1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
first.

(2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
feature?
+1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1

(3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention

Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a suggestion.
Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for advice or
transfer
the right of decision.

IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach or
link  it
from README. This would be a really helpful information to new contributors
so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it would
be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism underneath
Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.

Best,
tison.

[Fabian Hueske-2]

Hi,

I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing lists
instead of asking just a single expert.

There's many reasons for that:
* usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the expert
is not available?)
* non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the community
(how can they become experts otherwise?)
* the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when only one
person can answer the question)

Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular contribution
areas would be flooded with requests.
Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle all
review requests directed at me.
I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I deem
important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed things
up.
There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but IMO
chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number of
requests.

Best, Fabian




Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]
>:

> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
>
> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
> first.
>
> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
> feature?
> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
>
> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
>
> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
> suggestion.
> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for advice or
> transfer
> the right of decision.
>
> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach or
> link  it
> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new contributors
> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it would
> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism underneath
> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>

[tison]

Hi Fabian,

You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing lists.

Now I am of the same opinion.

Best,
tison.


Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：

> Hi,
>
> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing lists
> instead of asking just a single expert.
>
> There's many reasons for that:
> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the expert
> is not available?)
> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the community
> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when only one
> person can answer the question)
>
> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular contribution
> areas would be flooded with requests.
> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle all
> review requests directed at me.
> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I deem
> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed things
> up.
> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but IMO
> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number of
> requests.
>
> Best, Fabian
>
>
>
>
> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> [hidden email]
> >:
>
> > Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> >
> > (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> > +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
> > first.
> >
> > (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
> > feature?
> > +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> >
> > (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
> >
> > Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
> > suggestion.
> > Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for advice or
> > transfer
> > the right of decision.
> >
> > IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach or
> > link  it
> > from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
> contributors
> > so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it would
> > be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism underneath
> > Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> >
> > Best,
> > tison.
> >
>

[Thomas Weise]

I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution / PR
should be handled through the official project channel.

I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and "experts",
for the reasons Fabian mentioned.

Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but then
what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?

Thanks,
Thomas



On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Fabian,
>
> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing lists.
>
> Now I am of the same opinion.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
>
> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing
> lists
> > instead of asking just a single expert.
> >
> > There's many reasons for that:
> > * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the
> expert
> > is not available?)
> > * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the community
> > (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> > * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when only
> one
> > person can answer the question)
> >
> > Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
> contribution
> > areas would be flooded with requests.
> > Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle all
> > review requests directed at me.
> > I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I deem
> > important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed
> things
> > up.
> > There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but IMO
> > chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number of
> > requests.
> >
> > Best, Fabian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > [hidden email]
> > >:
> >
> > > Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> > >
> > > (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> > > +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
> > > first.
> > >
> > > (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
> > > feature?
> > > +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> > >
> > > (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
> > >
> > > Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
> > > suggestion.
> > > Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for advice
> or
> > > transfer
> > > the right of decision.
> > >
> > > IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach or
> > > link  it
> > > from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
> > contributors
> > > so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it would
> > > be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism
> underneath
> > > Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > tison.
> > >
> >
>

[Chesnay Schepler-3]

There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it possible to
provide this in any way on the project level.

As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work
voluntarily, and
as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies such) or
similar is simply not feasible.

On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:

> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution / PR
> should be handled through the official project channel.
>
> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and "experts",
> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
>
> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but then
> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Fabian,
>>
>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing lists.
>>
>> Now I am of the same opinion.
>>
>> Best,
>> tison.
>>
>>
>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing
>> lists
>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
>>>
>>> There's many reasons for that:
>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the
>> expert
>>> is not available?)
>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the community
>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when only
>> one
>>> person can answer the question)
>>>
>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
>> contribution
>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle all
>>> review requests directed at me.
>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I deem
>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed
>> things
>>> up.
>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but IMO
>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number of
>>> requests.
>>>
>>> Best, Fabian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
>>> [hidden email]
>>>> :
>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
>>>>
>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
>>>> first.
>>>>
>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
>>>> feature?
>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
>>>>
>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
>>>>
>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
>>>> suggestion.
>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for advice
>> or
>>>> transfer
>>>> the right of decision.
>>>>
>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach or
>>>> link  it
>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
>>> contributors
>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it would
>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism
>> underneath
>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> tison.
>>>>

[Stephan Ewen]

Still, even with a group of volunteers coordinating well, it is possible to
do better than we currently do, which is the goal.
No hard guarantees, agreed, but reasonable estimates and rules-of-thumbs
can work well...

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:21 PM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it possible to
> provide this in any way on the project level.
>
> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work
> voluntarily, and
> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies such) or
> similar is simply not feasible.
>
> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution / PR
> > should be handled through the official project channel.
> >
> > I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and "experts",
> > for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> >
> > Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but then
> > what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Fabian,
> >>
> >> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing lists.
> >>
> >> Now I am of the same opinion.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> tison.
> >>
> >>
> >> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing
> >> lists
> >>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> >>>
> >>> There's many reasons for that:
> >>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the
> >> expert
> >>> is not available?)
> >>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the
> community
> >>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> >>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when only
> >> one
> >>> person can answer the question)
> >>>
> >>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
> >> contribution
> >>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> >>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle all
> >>> review requests directed at me.
> >>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I
> deem
> >>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed
> >> things
> >>> up.
> >>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but IMO
> >>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number of
> >>> requests.
> >>>
> >>> Best, Fabian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>>> :
> >>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> >>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
> >>>> first.
> >>>>
> >>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
> >>>> feature?
> >>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> >>>>
> >>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
> >>>>
> >>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
> >>>> suggestion.
> >>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for advice
> >> or
> >>>> transfer
> >>>> the right of decision.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach
> or
> >>>> link  it
> >>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
> >>> contributors
> >>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it
> would
> >>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism
> >> underneath
> >>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> tison.
> >>>>
>
>

[tison]

I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a PR at the
project level. As ASF statement[1]:

> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is not
applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make changes to
the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable amount of
time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail to the
developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers, often doing the
development in their spare time.

However, an open source community shows its friendliness to contributors.
Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take care of, even be
rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to provide help to
the process.

Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink community
try best to help its contributors and committers, then take advantage of
"open source".

Best,
tison.

[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches


Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午11:21写道：

> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it possible to
> provide this in any way on the project level.
>
> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work
> voluntarily, and
> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies such) or
> similar is simply not feasible.
>
> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution / PR
> > should be handled through the official project channel.
> >
> > I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and "experts",
> > for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> >
> > Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but then
> > what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Fabian,
> >>
> >> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing lists.
> >>
> >> Now I am of the same opinion.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> tison.
> >>
> >>
> >> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing
> >> lists
> >>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> >>>
> >>> There's many reasons for that:
> >>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the
> >> expert
> >>> is not available?)
> >>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the
> community
> >>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> >>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when only
> >> one
> >>> person can answer the question)
> >>>
> >>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
> >> contribution
> >>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> >>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle all
> >>> review requests directed at me.
> >>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I
> deem
> >>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed
> >> things
> >>> up.
> >>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but IMO
> >>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number of
> >>> requests.
> >>>
> >>> Best, Fabian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>>> :
> >>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> >>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal the
> >>>> first.
> >>>>
> >>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
> >>>> feature?
> >>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> >>>>
> >>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
> >>>>
> >>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
> >>>> suggestion.
> >>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for advice
> >> or
> >>>> transfer
> >>>> the right of decision.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach
> or
> >>>> link  it
> >>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
> >>> contributors
> >>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it
> would
> >>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism
> >> underneath
> >>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> tison.
> >>>>
>
>

[Fabian Hueske-2]

Hi everyone,

Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if not!), I
would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a page for
Flink's website [2].
I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].

Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form on new pull
requests.

Best, Fabian

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
[2] https://flink.apache.org
[3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web

Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]
>:

> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a PR at the
> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
>
> > Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is not
> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make changes to
> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable amount of
> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail to the
> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers, often doing the
> development in their spare time.
>
> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to contributors.
> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take care of, even be
> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to provide help to
> the process.
>
> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink community
> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take advantage of
> "open source".
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
>
>
> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午11:21写道：
>
> > There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it possible to
> > provide this in any way on the project level.
> >
> > As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work
> > voluntarily, and
> > as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies such) or
> > similar is simply not feasible.
> >
> > On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution / PR
> > > should be handled through the official project channel.
> > >
> > > I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and
> "experts",
> > > for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> > >
> > > Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but then
> > > what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Fabian,
> > >>
> > >> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing lists.
> > >>
> > >> Now I am of the same opinion.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> tison.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing
> > >> lists
> > >>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> > >>>
> > >>> There's many reasons for that:
> > >>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the
> > >> expert
> > >>> is not available?)
> > >>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the
> > community
> > >>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> > >>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when
> only
> > >> one
> > >>> person can answer the question)
> > >>>
> > >>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
> > >> contribution
> > >>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> > >>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle
> all
> > >>> review requests directed at me.
> > >>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I
> > deem
> > >>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed
> > >> things
> > >>> up.
> > >>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but
> IMO
> > >>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number
> of
> > >>> requests.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best, Fabian
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > >>> [hidden email]
> > >>>> :
> > >>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> > >>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal
> the
> > >>>> first.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
> > >>>> feature?
> > >>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
> > >>>> suggestion.
> > >>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for
> advice
> > >> or
> > >>>> transfer
> > >>>> the right of decision.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach
> > or
> > >>>> link  it
> > >>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
> > >>> contributors
> > >>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it
> > would
> > >>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism
> > >> underneath
> > >>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>> tison.
> > >>>>
> >
> >
>

[isunjin]

+1, look forward to see the change.

> On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if not!), I
> would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a page for
> Flink's website [2].
> I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
>
> Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form on new pull
> requests.
>
> Best, Fabian
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
> [2] https://flink.apache.org
> [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
>
> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]
>> :
>
>> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a PR at the
>> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
>>
>>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is not
>> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make changes to
>> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable amount of
>> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail to the
>> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers, often doing the
>> development in their spare time.
>>
>> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to contributors.
>> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take care of, even be
>> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to provide help to
>> the process.
>>
>> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink community
>> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take advantage of
>> "open source".
>>
>> Best,
>> tison.
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
>>
>>
>> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午11:21写道：
>>
>>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it possible to
>>> provide this in any way on the project level.
>>>
>>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work
>>> voluntarily, and
>>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies such) or
>>> similar is simply not feasible.
>>>
>>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
>>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution / PR
>>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
>>>>
>>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and
>> "experts",
>>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but then
>>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>>>
>>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing lists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> tison.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing
>>>>> lists
>>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
>>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the
>>>>> expert
>>>>>> is not available?)
>>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the
>>> community
>>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
>>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when
>> only
>>>>> one
>>>>>> person can answer the question)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
>>>>> contribution
>>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
>>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle
>> all
>>>>>> review requests directed at me.
>>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I
>>> deem
>>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed
>>>>> things
>>>>>> up.
>>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but
>> IMO
>>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number
>> of
>>>>>> requests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
>>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal
>> the
>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
>>>>>>> feature?
>>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
>>>>>>> suggestion.
>>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for
>> advice
>>>>> or
>>>>>>> transfer
>>>>>>> the right of decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts", attach
>>> or
>>>>>>> link  it
>>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
>>>>>> contributors
>>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it
>>> would
>>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism
>>>>> underneath
>>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> tison.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[tison]

+1

Jin Sun <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：

> +1, look forward to see the change.
>
> > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if not!), I
> > would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a page for
> > Flink's website [2].
> > I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
> >
> > Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form on new
> pull
> > requests.
> >
> > Best, Fabian
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
> > [2] https://flink.apache.org
> > [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
> >
> > Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> [hidden email]
> >> :
> >
> >> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a PR at
> the
> >> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
> >>
> >>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is not
> >> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make changes to
> >> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable amount of
> >> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail to the
> >> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers, often doing
> the
> >> development in their spare time.
> >>
> >> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to
> contributors.
> >> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take care of,
> even be
> >> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to provide
> help to
> >> the process.
> >>
> >> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink community
> >> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take advantage of
> >> "open source".
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> tison.
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
> >>
> >>
> >> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午11:21写道：
> >>
> >>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it possible to
> >>> provide this in any way on the project level.
> >>>
> >>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work
> >>> voluntarily, and
> >>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies such) or
> >>> similar is simply not feasible.
> >>>
> >>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution /
> PR
> >>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and
> >> "experts",
> >>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but
> then
> >>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Thomas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Fabian,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing
> lists.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> tison.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public mailing
> >>>>> lists
> >>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
> >>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if the
> >>>>> expert
> >>>>>> is not available?)
> >>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the
> >>> community
> >>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> >>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when
> >> only
> >>>>> one
> >>>>>> person can answer the question)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
> >>>>> contribution
> >>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> >>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle
> >> all
> >>>>>> review requests directed at me.
> >>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that I
> >>> deem
> >>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to speed
> >>>>> things
> >>>>>> up.
> >>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but
> >> IMO
> >>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the number
> >> of
> >>>>>> requests.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best, Fabian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> >>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the proposal
> >> the
> >>>>>>> first.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding the
> >>>>>>> feature?
> >>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
> >>>>>>> suggestion.
> >>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for
> >> advice
> >>>>> or
> >>>>>>> transfer
> >>>>>>> the right of decision.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts",
> attach
> >>> or
> >>>>>>> link  it
> >>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
> >>>>>> contributors
> >>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it
> >>> would
> >>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism
> >>>>> underneath
> >>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> tison.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

[Thomas Weise]

+1


On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> Jin Sun <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
>
> > +1, look forward to see the change.
> >
> > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if
> not!), I
> > > would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a page for
> > > Flink's website [2].
> > > I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
> > >
> > > Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form on new
> > pull
> > > requests.
> > >
> > > Best, Fabian
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
> > > [2] https://flink.apache.org
> > > [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
> > >
> > > Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > [hidden email]
> > >> :
> > >
> > >> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a PR at
> > the
> > >> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
> > >>
> > >>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is not
> > >> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make changes
> to
> > >> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable amount
> of
> > >> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail to the
> > >> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers, often doing
> > the
> > >> development in their spare time.
> > >>
> > >> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to
> > contributors.
> > >> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take care of,
> > even be
> > >> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to provide
> > help to
> > >> the process.
> > >>
> > >> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink
> community
> > >> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take advantage
> of
> > >> "open source".
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> tison.
> > >>
> > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午11:21写道：
> > >>
> > >>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it possible
> to
> > >>> provide this in any way on the project level.
> > >>>
> > >>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work
> > >>> voluntarily, and
> > >>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies such)
> or
> > >>> similar is simply not feasible.
> > >>>
> > >>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a contribution /
> > PR
> > >>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and
> > >> "experts",
> > >>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but
> > then
> > >>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Thomas
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Fabian,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing
> > lists.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best,
> > >>>>> tison.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public
> mailing
> > >>>>> lists
> > >>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
> > >>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if
> the
> > >>>>> expert
> > >>>>>> is not available?)
> > >>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the
> > >>> community
> > >>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> > >>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases when
> > >> only
> > >>>>> one
> > >>>>>> person can answer the question)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
> > >>>>> contribution
> > >>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> > >>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot handle
> > >> all
> > >>>>>> review requests directed at me.
> > >>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions) that
> I
> > >>> deem
> > >>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to
> speed
> > >>>>> things
> > >>>>>> up.
> > >>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified, but
> > >> IMO
> > >>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the
> number
> > >> of
> > >>>>>> requests.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Best, Fabian
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> > >>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the
> proposal
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>> first.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding
> the
> > >>>>>>> feature?
> > >>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as a
> > >>>>>>> suggestion.
> > >>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for
> > >> advice
> > >>>>> or
> > >>>>>>> transfer
> > >>>>>>> the right of decision.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts",
> > attach
> > >>> or
> > >>>>>>> link  it
> > >>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
> > >>>>>> contributors
> > >>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides it
> > >>> would
> > >>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism
> > >>>>> underneath
> > >>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>> tison.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

[Peter Huang]

+1

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Jin Sun <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
> >
> > > +1, look forward to see the change.
> > >
> > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if
> > not!), I
> > > > would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a page
> for
> > > > Flink's website [2].
> > > > I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
> > > >
> > > > Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form on new
> > > pull
> > > > requests.
> > > >
> > > > Best, Fabian
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
> > > > [2] https://flink.apache.org
> > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
> > > >
> > > > Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > >> :
> > > >
> > > >> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a PR
> at
> > > the
> > > >> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is not
> > > >> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make
> changes
> > to
> > > >> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable amount
> > of
> > > >> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail to
> the
> > > >> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers, often
> doing
> > > the
> > > >> development in their spare time.
> > > >>
> > > >> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to
> > > contributors.
> > > >> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take care of,
> > > even be
> > > >> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to provide
> > > help to
> > > >> the process.
> > > >>
> > > >> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink
> > community
> > > >> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take
> advantage
> > of
> > > >> "open source".
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> tison.
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午11:21写道：
> > > >>
> > > >>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it
> possible
> > to
> > > >>> provide this in any way on the project level.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc. work
> > > >>> voluntarily, and
> > > >>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies
> such)
> > or
> > > >>> similar is simply not feasible.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > >>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a
> contribution /
> > > PR
> > > >>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and
> > > >> "experts",
> > > >>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either, but
> > > then
> > > >>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Thomas
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Fabian,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing
> > > lists.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>> tison.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public
> > mailing
> > > >>>>> lists
> > > >>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
> > > >>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what if
> > the
> > > >>>>> expert
> > > >>>>>> is not available?)
> > > >>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the
> > > >>> community
> > > >>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> > > >>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases
> when
> > > >> only
> > > >>>>> one
> > > >>>>>> person can answer the question)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
> > > >>>>> contribution
> > > >>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> > > >>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot
> handle
> > > >> all
> > > >>>>>> review requests directed at me.
> > > >>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions)
> that
> > I
> > > >>> deem
> > > >>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to
> > speed
> > > >>>>> things
> > > >>>>>> up.
> > > >>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified,
> but
> > > >> IMO
> > > >>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the
> > number
> > > >> of
> > > >>>>>> requests.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Best, Fabian
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> > > >>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the
> > proposal
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>>> first.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about adding
> > the
> > > >>>>>>> feature?
> > > >>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special attention
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated as
> a
> > > >>>>>>> suggestion.
> > > >>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either for
> > > >> advice
> > > >>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>> transfer
> > > >>>>>>> the right of decision.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts",
> > > attach
> > > >>> or
> > > >>>>>>> link  it
> > > >>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to new
> > > >>>>>> contributors
> > > >>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice. Besides
> it
> > > >>> would
> > > >>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the mechanism
> > > >>>>> underneath
> > > >>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>> tison.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

[vino yang]

+1

Peter Huang <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写道：

> +1
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Jin Sun <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
> > >
> > > > +1, look forward to see the change.
> > > >
> > > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if
> > > not!), I
> > > > > would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a page
> > for
> > > > > Flink's website [2].
> > > > > I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
> > > > >
> > > > > Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form on
> new
> > > > pull
> > > > > requests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best, Fabian
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
> > > > > [2] https://flink.apache.org
> > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> :
> > > > >
> > > > >> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a
> PR
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > >> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is
> not
> > > > >> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make
> > changes
> > > to
> > > > >> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable
> amount
> > > of
> > > > >> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail to
> > the
> > > > >> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers, often
> > doing
> > > > the
> > > > >> development in their spare time.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to
> > > > contributors.
> > > > >> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take care
> of,
> > > > even be
> > > > >> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to
> provide
> > > > help to
> > > > >> the process.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink
> > > community
> > > > >> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take
> > advantage
> > > of
> > > > >> "open source".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best,
> > > > >> tison.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午11:21写道：
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it
> > possible
> > > to
> > > > >>> provide this in any way on the project level.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc.
> work
> > > > >>> voluntarily, and
> > > > >>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies
> > such)
> > > or
> > > > >>> similar is simply not feasible.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a
> > contribution /
> > > > PR
> > > > >>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and
> > > > >> "experts",
> > > > >>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either,
> but
> > > > then
> > > > >>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> Thomas
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Fabian,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing
> > > > lists.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>> tison.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public
> > > mailing
> > > > >>>>> lists
> > > > >>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
> > > > >>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what
> if
> > > the
> > > > >>>>> expert
> > > > >>>>>> is not available?)
> > > > >>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the
> > > > >>> community
> > > > >>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> > > > >>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases
> > when
> > > > >> only
> > > > >>>>> one
> > > > >>>>>> person can answer the question)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
> > > > >>>>> contribution
> > > > >>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> > > > >>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot
> > handle
> > > > >> all
> > > > >>>>>> review requests directed at me.
> > > > >>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions)
> > that
> > > I
> > > > >>> deem
> > > > >>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to
> > > speed
> > > > >>>>> things
> > > > >>>>>> up.
> > > > >>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified,
> > but
> > > > >> IMO
> > > > >>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the
> > > number
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>>>>> requests.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Best, Fabian
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> > > > >>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the
> > > proposal
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>>>>> first.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about
> adding
> > > the
> > > > >>>>>>> feature?
> > > > >>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special
> attention
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated
> as
> > a
> > > > >>>>>>> suggestion.
> > > > >>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either
> for
> > > > >> advice
> > > > >>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>> transfer
> > > > >>>>>>> the right of decision.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts",
> > > > attach
> > > > >>> or
> > > > >>>>>>> link  it
> > > > >>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to
> new
> > > > >>>>>> contributors
> > > > >>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice.
> Besides
> > it
> > > > >>> would
> > > > >>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the
> mechanism
> > > > >>>>> underneath
> > > > >>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>>> tison.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999)]

+1
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：vino yang <[hidden email]>
发送时间：2018年10月9日(星期二) 14:08
收件人：dev <[hidden email]>
主　题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps

+1

Peter Huang <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写道：

> +1
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Jin Sun <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
> > >
> > > > +1, look forward to see the change.
> > > >
> > > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if
> > > not!), I
> > > > > would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a page
> > for
> > > > > Flink's website [2].
> > > > > I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
> > > > >
> > > > > Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form on
> new
> > > > pull
> > > > > requests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best, Fabian
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
> > > > > [2] https://flink.apache.org
> > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> :
> > > > >
> > > > >> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a
> PR
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > >> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is
> not
> > > > >> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make
> > changes
> > > to
> > > > >> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable
> amount
> > > of
> > > > >> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail to
> > the
> > > > >> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers, often
> > doing
> > > > the
> > > > >> development in their spare time.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to
> > > > contributors.
> > > > >> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take care
> of,
> > > > even be
> > > > >> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to
> provide
> > > > help to
> > > > >> the process.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink
> > > community
> > > > >> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take
> > advantage
> > > of
> > > > >> "open source".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best,
> > > > >> tison.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午11:21写道：
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it
> > possible
> > > to
> > > > >>> provide this in any way on the project level.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc.
> work
> > > > >>> voluntarily, and
> > > > >>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies
> > such)
> > > or
> > > > >>> similar is simply not feasible.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > >>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a
> > contribution /
> > > > PR
> > > > >>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and
> > > > >> "experts",
> > > > >>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either,
> but
> > > > then
> > > > >>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> Thomas
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Fabian,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from mailing
> > > > lists.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>> tison.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public
> > > mailing
> > > > >>>>> lists
> > > > >>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
> > > > >>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what
> if
> > > the
> > > > >>>>> expert
> > > > >>>>>> is not available?)
> > > > >>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to the
> > > > >>> community
> > > > >>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> > > > >>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in cases
> > when
> > > > >> only
> > > > >>>>> one
> > > > >>>>>> person can answer the question)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for popular
> > > > >>>>> contribution
> > > > >>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> > > > >>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot
> > handle
> > > > >> all
> > > > >>>>>> review requests directed at me.
> > > > >>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions)
> > that
> > > I
> > > > >>> deem
> > > > >>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help to
> > > speed
> > > > >>>>> things
> > > > >>>>>> up.
> > > > >>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be notified,
> > but
> > > > >> IMO
> > > > >>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the
> > > number
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>>>>> requests.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Best, Fabian
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> > > > >>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the
> > > proposal
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>>>>> first.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about
> adding
> > > the
> > > > >>>>>>> feature?
> > > > >>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special
> attention
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated
> as
> > a
> > > > >>>>>>> suggestion.
> > > > >>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either
> for
> > > > >> advice
> > > > >>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>> transfer
> > > > >>>>>>> the right of decision.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component experts",
> > > > attach
> > > > >>> or
> > > > >>>>>>> link  it
> > > > >>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to
> new
> > > > >>>>>> contributors
> > > > >>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice.
> Besides
> > it
> > > > >>> would
> > > > >>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the
> mechanism
> > > > >>>>> underneath
> > > > >>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>>> tison.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Till Rohrmann]

+1

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999)
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 发件人：vino yang <[hidden email]>
> 发送时间：2018年10月9日(星期二) 14:08
> 收件人：dev <[hidden email]>
> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps
>
> +1
>
> Peter Huang <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写道：
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Jin Sun <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
> > > >
> > > > > +1, look forward to see the change.
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice if
> > > > not!), I
> > > > > > would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a
> page
> > > for
> > > > > > Flink's website [2].
> > > > > > I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form on
> > new
> > > > > pull
> > > > > > requests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best, Fabian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
> > > > > > [2] https://flink.apache.org
> > > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> :
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review of a
> > PR
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch is
> > not
> > > > > >> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make
> > > changes
> > > > to
> > > > > >> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable
> > amount
> > > > of
> > > > > >> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail
> to
> > > the
> > > > > >> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers, often
> > > doing
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> development in their spare time.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to
> > > > > contributors.
> > > > > >> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take care
> > of,
> > > > > even be
> > > > > >> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to
> > provide
> > > > > help to
> > > > > >> the process.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink
> > > > community
> > > > > >> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take
> > > advantage
> > > > of
> > > > > >> "open source".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > >> tison.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午11:21写道：
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it
> > > possible
> > > > to
> > > > > >>> provide this in any way on the project level.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers etc.
> > work
> > > > > >>> voluntarily, and
> > > > > >>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it implies
> > > such)
> > > > or
> > > > > >>> similar is simply not feasible.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > >>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a
> > > contribution /
> > > > > PR
> > > > > >>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners" and
> > > > > >> "experts",
> > > > > >>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers" either,
> > but
> > > > > then
> > > > > >>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked at?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>> Thomas
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Hi Fabian,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from
> mailing
> > > > > lists.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>> tison.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the public
> > > > mailing
> > > > > >>>>> lists
> > > > > >>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
> > > > > >>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question (what
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>> expert
> > > > > >>>>>> is not available?)
> > > > > >>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to
> the
> > > > > >>> community
> > > > > >>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> > > > > >>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in
> cases
> > > when
> > > > > >> only
> > > > > >>>>> one
> > > > > >>>>>> person can answer the question)
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for
> popular
> > > > > >>>>> contribution
> > > > > >>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> > > > > >>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I cannot
> > > handle
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >>>>>> review requests directed at me.
> > > > > >>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions, discussions)
> > > that
> > > > I
> > > > > >>> deem
> > > > > >>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help
> to
> > > > speed
> > > > > >>>>> things
> > > > > >>>>>> up.
> > > > > >>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be
> notified,
> > > but
> > > > > >> IMO
> > > > > >>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with the
> > > > number
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >>>>>> requests.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Best, Fabian
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> > > > > >>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the
> > > > proposal
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> first.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about
> > adding
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> feature?
> > > > > >>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special
> > attention
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is treated
> > as
> > > a
> > > > > >>>>>>> suggestion.
> > > > > >>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention, either
> > for
> > > > > >> advice
> > > > > >>>>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>> transfer
> > > > > >>>>>>> the right of decision.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component
> experts",
> > > > > attach
> > > > > >>> or
> > > > > >>>>>>> link  it
> > > > > >>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information to
> > new
> > > > > >>>>>> contributors
> > > > > >>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice.
> > Besides
> > > it
> > > > > >>> would
> > > > > >>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the
> > mechanism
> > > > > >>>>> underneath
> > > > > >>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>>>> tison.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[Hequn Cheng]

+1

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:25 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999)
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 发件人：vino yang <[hidden email]>
> > 发送时间：2018年10月9日(星期二) 14:08
> > 收件人：dev <[hidden email]>
> > 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Peter Huang <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写道：
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Jin Sun <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1, look forward to see the change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice
> if
> > > > > not!), I
> > > > > > > would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a
> > page
> > > > for
> > > > > > > Flink's website [2].
> > > > > > > I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form
> on
> > > new
> > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > requests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best, Fabian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
> > > > > > > [2] https://flink.apache.org
> > > > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review
> of a
> > > PR
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > >> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make
> > > > changes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable
> > > amount
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers,
> often
> > > > doing
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> development in their spare time.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to
> > > > > > contributors.
> > > > > > >> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take
> care
> > > of,
> > > > > > even be
> > > > > > >> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to
> > > provide
> > > > > > help to
> > > > > > >> the process.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink
> > > > > community
> > > > > > >> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take
> > > > advantage
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> "open source".
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > >> tison.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二
> 下午11:21写道：
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it
> > > > possible
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >>> provide this in any way on the project level.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers
> etc.
> > > work
> > > > > > >>> voluntarily, and
> > > > > > >>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it
> implies
> > > > such)
> > > > > or
> > > > > > >>> similar is simply not feasible.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a
> > > > contribution /
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > >>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners"
> and
> > > > > > >> "experts",
> > > > > > >>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers"
> either,
> > > but
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > >>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked
> at?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> Thomas
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Fabian,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from
> > mailing
> > > > > > lists.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Best,
> > > > > > >>>>> tison.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the
> public
> > > > > mailing
> > > > > > >>>>> lists
> > > > > > >>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
> > > > > > >>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question
> (what
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> expert
> > > > > > >>>>>> is not available?)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to
> > the
> > > > > > >>> community
> > > > > > >>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in
> > cases
> > > > when
> > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > >>>>> one
> > > > > > >>>>>> person can answer the question)
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for
> > popular
> > > > > > >>>>> contribution
> > > > > > >>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I
> cannot
> > > > handle
> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > >>>>>> review requests directed at me.
> > > > > > >>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions,
> discussions)
> > > > that
> > > > > I
> > > > > > >>> deem
> > > > > > >>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help
> > to
> > > > > speed
> > > > > > >>>>> things
> > > > > > >>>>>> up.
> > > > > > >>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be
> > notified,
> > > > but
> > > > > > >> IMO
> > > > > > >>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with
> the
> > > > > number
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >>>>>> requests.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Best, Fabian
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> > > > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the
> > > > > proposal
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> first.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about
> > > adding
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> feature?
> > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special
> > > attention
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is
> treated
> > > as
> > > > a
> > > > > > >>>>>>> suggestion.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention,
> either
> > > for
> > > > > > >> advice
> > > > > > >>>>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>>> transfer
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the right of decision.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component
> > experts",
> > > > > > attach
> > > > > > >>> or
> > > > > > >>>>>>> link  it
> > > > > > >>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information
> to
> > > new
> > > > > > >>>>>> contributors
> > > > > > >>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice.
> > > Besides
> > > > it
> > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > >>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the
> > > mechanism
> > > > > > >>>>> underneath
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> tison.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

+1

> On 9. Oct 2018, at 17:11, Hequn Cheng <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:25 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999)
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 发件人：vino yang <[hidden email]>
>>> 发送时间：2018年10月9日(星期二) 14:08
>>> 收件人：dev <[hidden email]>
>>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Peter Huang <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写道：
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jin Sun <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1, look forward to see the change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice
>> if
>>>>>> not!), I
>>>>>>>> would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a
>>> page
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> Flink's website [2].
>>>>>>>> I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form
>> on
>>>> new
>>>>>>> pull
>>>>>>>> requests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
>>>>>>>> [2] https://flink.apache.org
>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review
>> of a
>>>> PR
>>>>> at
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch
>> is
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make
>>>>> changes
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable
>>>> amount
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail
>>> to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers,
>> often
>>>>> doing
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> development in their spare time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to
>>>>>>> contributors.
>>>>>>>>> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take
>> care
>>>> of,
>>>>>>> even be
>>>>>>>>> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to
>>>> provide
>>>>>>> help to
>>>>>>>>> the process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink
>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take
>>>>> advantage
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> "open source".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> tison.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二
>> 下午11:21写道：
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it
>>>>> possible
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> provide this in any way on the project level.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers
>> etc.
>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>> voluntarily, and
>>>>>>>>>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it
>> implies
>>>>> such)
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> similar is simply not feasible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a
>>>>> contribution /
>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners"
>> and
>>>>>>>>> "experts",
>>>>>>>>>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers"
>> either,
>>>> but
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked
>> at?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from
>>> mailing
>>>>>>> lists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> tison.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the
>> public
>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>> lists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question
>> (what
>>>> if
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not available?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in
>>> cases
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> person can answer the question)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for
>>> popular
>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I
>> cannot
>>>>> handle
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> review requests directed at me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions,
>> discussions)
>>>>> that
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> deem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help
>>> to
>>>>>> speed
>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be
>>> notified,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> IMO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with
>> the
>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the
>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about
>>>> adding
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special
>>>> attention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is
>> treated
>>>> as
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention,
>> either
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> advice
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right of decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component
>>> experts",
>>>>>>> attach
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link  it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information
>> to
>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice.
>>>> Besides
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the
>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>> underneath
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tison.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[Fabian Hueske-2]

Hi all,

I opened a PR [1] to add the PR review guide to the Flink website.

Cheers, Fabian

[1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/126

Am Mi., 10. Okt. 2018 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Aljoscha Krettek <
[hidden email]>:

> +1
>
> > On 9. Oct 2018, at 17:11, Hequn Cheng <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:25 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:08 AM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999)
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 发件人：vino yang <[hidden email]>
> >>> 发送时间：2018年10月9日(星期二) 14:08
> >>> 收件人：dev <[hidden email]>
> >>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] [Contributing] (2) - Review Steps
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> Peter Huang <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 下午1:54写道：
> >>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM Thomas Weise <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM Tzu-Li Chen <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jin Sun <[hidden email]> 于2018年10月9日周二 上午2:10写道：
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1, look forward to see the change.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Since we have addressed all comments (please raise your voice
> >> if
> >>>>>> not!), I
> >>>>>>>> would like to move forward and convert the proposal [1] into a
> >>> page
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> Flink's website [2].
> >>>>>>>> I will create a pull request against the website repo [3].
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Once the page got merged, we can start posting the review form
> >> on
> >>>> new
> >>>>>>> pull
> >>>>>>>> requests.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2cRbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk
> >>>>>>>> [2] https://flink.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/flink-web
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I agree with Chesnay that we don't guarantee (quick) review
> >> of a
> >>>> PR
> >>>>> at
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> project level. As ASF statement[1]:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Please show some patience with the developers if your patch
> >> is
> >>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> applied as fast as you'd like or a developer asks you to make
> >>>>> changes
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> the patch. If you do not receive any feedback in a reasonable
> >>>> amount
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> time (say a week or two), feel free to send a follow-up e-mail
> >>> to
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> developer list. Open Source developers are all volunteers,
> >> often
> >>>>> doing
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> development in their spare time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> However, an open source community shows its friendliness to
> >>>>>>> contributors.
> >>>>>>>>> Thus contributors believe their contribution would be take
> >> care
> >>>> of,
> >>>>>>> even be
> >>>>>>>>> rejected with a reason; project members are thought kind to
> >>>> provide
> >>>>>>> help to
> >>>>>>>>> the process.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just like this thread kicked off, it is glad to see that Flink
> >>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>> try best to help its contributors and committers, then take
> >>>>> advantage
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> "open source".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>> tison.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/contributors#patches
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二
> >> 下午11:21写道：
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There is no guarantee that a PR will be looked at nor is it
> >>>>> possible
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> provide this in any way on the project level.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As far as Apache is concerned all contributors/committers
> >> etc.
> >>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>> voluntarily, and
> >>>>>>>>>> as such assigning work (which includes ownership if it
> >> implies
> >>>>> such)
> >>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>> similar is simply not feasible.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 25.09.2018 16:54, Thomas Weise wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that all discussion/coordination related to a
> >>>>> contribution /
> >>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>> should be handled through the official project channel.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would also prefer that there are no designated "owners"
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>> "experts",
> >>>>>>>>>>> for the reasons Fabian mentioned.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ideally there is no need to have "suggested reviewers"
> >> either,
> >>>> but
> >>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>>>>> what will be the process to ensure that PRs will be looked
> >> at?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thomas
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:17 AM Tzu-Li Chen <
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Fabian,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You convinced me. I miss the advantage we can take from
> >>> mailing
> >>>>>>> lists.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now I am of the same opinion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tison.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> 于2018年9月25日周二 下午3:01写道：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think questions about Flink should be posted on the
> >> public
> >>>>>> mailing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lists
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of asking just a single expert.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There's many reasons for that:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * usually more than one person can answer the question
> >> (what
> >>>> if
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> expert
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not available?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * non-committers can join the discussion and contribute to
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (how can they become experts otherwise?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * the knowledge is shared on the mailing list (helps in
> >>> cases
> >>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> person can answer the question)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Last but not least, my concern is that committers for
> >>> popular
> >>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> areas would be flooded with requests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Even without being listed as a "component expert", I
> >> cannot
> >>>>> handle
> >>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> review requests directed at me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I work on issues (PR reviews, my contributions,
> >> discussions)
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>> deem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> important and being constantly pinged does not really help
> >>> to
> >>>>>> speed
> >>>>>>>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are of course cases when it is important to be
> >>> notified,
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>> IMO
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> chances that those get the right attention decrease with
> >> the
> >>>>>> number
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> requests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Di., 25. Sep. 2018 um 04:10 Uhr schrieb Tzu-Li Chen <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for start the discussion Stephan!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Do we agree on the five basic steps below?*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to the five steps and making the third question in the
> >>>>>> proposal
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) How do we understand that consensus is reached about
> >>>> adding
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to lazy consensus with one committer's +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) To answer the question whether a PR needs special
> >>>> attention
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contributor can ask for special attention, which is
> >> treated
> >>>> as
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Committer can ask for another committers' attention,
> >> either
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> advice
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right of decision.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO it is quite help to add a page about "component
> >>> experts",
> >>>>>>> attach
> >>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> link  it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from README. This would be a really helpful information
> >> to
> >>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that they know to whom he can cc or ask for advice.
> >>>> Besides
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be helpful for those who want to know more about the
> >>>> mechanism
> >>>>>>>>>>>> underneath
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink, now they know with whom they can consult.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tison.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>