2023-02-17 Maintainers' Office Hours Notes

Attendees

@Jeremy Bowman (Deactivated) , @Edward Zarecor , @Michelle Philbrick , @Ned Batchelder (Deactivated) , @Feanil Patel , @Zainab Amir , @Sarina Canelake

Agenda

• [Michelle|Jenna] Product review process The product folks would like to see PRs earlier in the process to ensure

  • There is a lightweight product issue template.

  • PMs don't want to be responsible for triage of the product board

  • Want to know when product review is complete and they are unblocked to ride herd over the issues related to a "feature ticket."

  • Jenna has created a workflow for the product portion: https://lucid.app/lucidchart/891867fe-6bf7-4f27-96ff-74248a4cd421/edit?from_internal=true

• Repos for Phase 3

• Checks -> statuses, statuses not labels

  • Feanil will open a ticket to investigate what we can do here.

• Things that need attention but can be done in parallel.

  • Getting the CLA

  • Getting tests run

  • (Optional) Needs product review.

• [Zainab] Questions

  • What to do if we're blocked because we're using continuous delivery and we don't release on Friday? Just add a comment and let the author know, that's completely OK, but

    • we should communicate it

    • move contribution tickets to blocked so we don't forget to merge them

  • The vanguards specific board is here: https://github.com/orgs/openedx/projects/19/views/15

• [JB] Repo health progress

  • There's a PR, needs Ned's attention as of yesterday, https://github.com/openedx/.github/pull/52

• [FP] Noticed that auto merging of PRs for requirements updates seems to be on, wanted some context on the plans around that.

  • [JB] Rationale https://github.com/edx/edx-arch-experiments/issues/78

  • [JB] Implementation 

  • [FP] Additional Implementation 

  • We should communicate out if this is going to be our standard operating procedure

  • The belief is that this should only merge PRs with the "ready to merge" label, but it seems to have been more eager than that.

  • Feanil is sharing PRs with Jeremy to investigate what happened

• [MG] Seeing issues after upgrading from V1 of CodeCov Github action to V3

  • Feanil and Jeremy note that this service has been flaky historically

  • Jeremy mentions that there was a Jenkins job for tracking how flaky that could be reified potentially if we continue to see this.

  • For now we should monitor and see if it is persistent.

Action Items

• [Feanil, Michelle, and Tim] will create a flow diagram for the contribution process, referencing Jenna's flow for product review

• [Feanil] will open a ticket to investigate what we can do about automating status updates based on GitHub check status and other statuses. We are interested in:

  • Needs tests approved

  • CLA check failure

  • Test/Linting failures

• [Jeremy Bowman] Investigate and comms around the auto-merging of requirements updates