Skip to content

Review rotation policy: remove reviewer from active review rotation if there's prolonged lack of feedback on randomly-rolled PRs / indication that unavailability is temporary #856

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
1 of 3 tasks
jieyouxu opened this issue Mar 28, 2025 · 5 comments
Closed
1 of 3 tasks

Review rotation policy: remove reviewer from active review rotation if there's prolonged lack of feedback on randomly-rolled PRs / indication that unavailability is temporary #856

jieyouxu opened this issue Mar 28, 2025 · 5 comments
Labels
major-change A proposal to make a major change to rustc major-change-accepted A major change proposal that was accepted T-compiler Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team

Comments

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

jieyouxu commented Mar 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Proposal

Motivation

Life happens. Sometimes compiler reviewers are just busy. Sometimes compiler reviewers on active compiler review rotation simply don't have enough time / don't feel like reviewing randomly rolled PRs, during extremely hectic / busy periods of time. And that's completely understandable.

At the same time, contributors submitting PRs for compiler changes can also reasonably expect that they will receive feedback within a reasonable timeframe, or at least indication that the randomly rolled compiler reviewer (on active review rotation) acknowledges the PR but may not get to it soon. It can be frustrating if the PR stays open for prolonged periods of time, yet receives no feedback from the randomly rolled compiler reviewer, accumulating merge conflicts.

See prior discussions in:

Proposed course of action

If a compiler reviewer on active compiler review rotation has not provided feedback on most randomly-rolled compiler PRs for more than 4 weeks, remove the busy/inactive compiler reviewer from active compiler review rotation. Note that this prevents randomly assigned compiler PRs but intentionally does not prevent explicit/manual r? assignment.

The busy/inactive compiler reviewer is of course more-than-welcomed to re-add themselves to the active compiler review rotation, when they have more availability.

This is a two-way door, because:

  1. It's also very easy for a compiler reviewer to re-add themselves back to the active compiler review rotation.
  2. We can also adjust the minimum threshold if in practice we find that 4 weeks is too short.

Removal protocol

  • Submit a PR to rust-lang/rust to remove the busy/inactive compiler reviewer from the active compiler review rotation in assign.adhoc_groups.compiler triagebot.toml config.
    • cc the busy/inactive compiler reviewer
    • Explicitly state that

      Please feel free to re-add yourself back to the active review rotation once you have more availability (if you feel like it).

Mentors or Reviewers

@Noratrieb who proposed this, but needs to have no blocking concerns from compiler team in general.

Process

The main points of the Major Change Process are as follows:

  • File an issue describing the proposal.
  • A compiler team member or contributor who is knowledgeable in the area can second by writing @rustbot second.
    • Finding a "second" suffices for internal changes. If however, you are proposing a new public-facing feature, such as a -C flag, then full team check-off is required.
    • Compiler team members can initiate a check-off via @rfcbot fcp merge on either the MCP or the PR.
  • Once an MCP is seconded, the Final Comment Period begins. If no objections are raised after 10 days, the MCP is considered approved.

You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.
@jieyouxu jieyouxu added major-change A proposal to make a major change to rustc T-compiler Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team labels Mar 28, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 28, 2025

Important

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that.
Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

Concerns or objections can formally be registered here by adding a comment. 

@rfcbot concern reason-for-concern
<description of the concern>

Concerns can be lifted with:

@rfcbot resolve reason-for-concern

See documentation at https://forge.rust-lang.org

cc @rust-lang/compiler

@rustbot rustbot added the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Mar 28, 2025
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Mar 28, 2025

@rustbot second

@rustbot rustbot added the final-comment-period The FCP has started, most (if not all) team members are in agreement label Mar 28, 2025
@saethlin
Copy link
Member

saethlin commented Mar 28, 2025 •
edited by apiraino
Loading

@rfcbot concern quantify-time-before-setting-reviewer-off-rotation

We need to specify a time or there will be arguments about what the right time is supposed to be.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member Author

Spelled out 4 weeks as a rough threshold, subject to future adjustments as necessary.

@rfcbot resolve quantify-time-before-setting-reviewer-off-rotation

@apiraino
Copy link
Contributor

I think we've reached an agreement :) Thanks @jieyouxu

@rustbot label -final-comment-period +major-change-accepted

@rustbot rustbot added major-change-accepted A major change proposal that was accepted and removed final-comment-period The FCP has started, most (if not all) team members are in agreement labels Apr 10, 2025
@apiraino apiraino removed the to-announce Announce this issue on triage meeting label Apr 17, 2025
@jieyouxu jieyouxu mentioned this issue May 2, 2025
Merged
Zalathar added a commit to Zalathar/rust that referenced this issue May 8, 2025
@Zalathar
Rollup merge of rust-lang#140579 - jieyouxu:temp-remove, r=wesleywiser
7b771f2 
Remove estebank from automated review assignment

First of all, Esteban thanks for all the reviews 💙

I think you've been quite busy IRL recently, so I'm proposing to remove you from the *automated* review assignment to prevent randomly rolling compiler PRs to you until you have more availability. If this is just temporary, please close this PR!

This is [just a way to improve our fairness when assigning reviews, trying to find a balance between leaving time to Rust contributors review on their terms and availability and avoid having PRs waiting for too long](rust-lang/compiler-team#856).

> [!NOTE]
>
> This only prevents randomly-rolled compiler PRs from being auto assigned to you, it does not prevent explicit `r?` assignments.

**Please feel free to re-add yourself back to the active review rotation once you have more availability (if you feel like it).**

- If you want, it's also possible to only opt-out of the *general* compiler review rotation (`r? compiler`) but keep e.g. `r? diagnostics` rolls.

r? compiler_leads
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this issue May 8, 2025
@matthiaskrgr
Rollup merge of rust-lang#140579 - jieyouxu:temp-remove, r=wesleywiser
1521f2c 
Remove estebank from automated review assignment

First of all, Esteban thanks for all the reviews 💙

I think you've been quite busy IRL recently, so I'm proposing to remove you from the *automated* review assignment to prevent randomly rolling compiler PRs to you until you have more availability. If this is just temporary, please close this PR!

This is [just a way to improve our fairness when assigning reviews, trying to find a balance between leaving time to Rust contributors review on their terms and availability and avoid having PRs waiting for too long](rust-lang/compiler-team#856).

> [!NOTE]
>
> This only prevents randomly-rolled compiler PRs from being auto assigned to you, it does not prevent explicit `r?` assignments.

**Please feel free to re-add yourself back to the active review rotation once you have more availability (if you feel like it).**

- If you want, it's also possible to only opt-out of the *general* compiler review rotation (`r? compiler`) but keep e.g. `r? diagnostics` rolls.

r? compiler_leads
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this issue May 8, 2025
@rust-timer
Unrolled build for rust-lang#140579
4dfe76f 
Rollup merge of rust-lang#140579 - jieyouxu:temp-remove, r=wesleywiser

Remove estebank from automated review assignment

First of all, Esteban thanks for all the reviews 💙

I think you've been quite busy IRL recently, so I'm proposing to remove you from the *automated* review assignment to prevent randomly rolling compiler PRs to you until you have more availability. If this is just temporary, please close this PR!

This is [just a way to improve our fairness when assigning reviews, trying to find a balance between leaving time to Rust contributors review on their terms and availability and avoid having PRs waiting for too long](rust-lang/compiler-team#856).

> [!NOTE]
>
> This only prevents randomly-rolled compiler PRs from being auto assigned to you, it does not prevent explicit `r?` assignments.

**Please feel free to re-add yourself back to the active review rotation once you have more availability (if you feel like it).**

- If you want, it's also possible to only opt-out of the *general* compiler review rotation (`r? compiler`) but keep e.g. `r? diagnostics` rolls.

r? compiler_leads
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
major-change A proposal to make a major change to rustc major-change-accepted A major change proposal that was accepted T-compiler Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@oli-obk @apiraino @saethlin @jieyouxu @rustbot