[Meta/PM] Reactivate frame-coders team

[ggwpez]

Reactivate the @paritytech/frame-coders team.

Tasks

Preview Give feedback

We're having trouble rendering your tasklist, it's most likely has one of the following formatting errors:

• indented tasks (i.e. nested tasklist; support for this is coming!)
• an empty task (i.e. - [ ] on a line by itself)
• any empty new lines (before/after the tasklist or in between tasks)
• duplicate issue/pr links
• a draft task exceeds 512 characters

Please check the tasklists documentation for more information. 🔗 Feedback Discussion

Thank you for participating in the Private Beta ❤️

1. Update the member list
2. [Meta/PM] Update CODEOWNERS #14054
   3 of 3
   +0
   
3. Add review rules regarding the owned files #14122
   A0-please_review B0-silent C1-low +3
   

[bkchr]

A team can host in maximum 10 members, after that each member costs $3.09 per month 🥲

People can just add themselves to the relevant files they want to be CODEOWNERS of, not sure the team is needed.

[ggwpez]

A team can host in maximum 10 members, after that each member costs $3.09 per month smiling_face_with_tear

🤯

Maybe we can use the custom GHA instead together with codeowners to get something like the team approvals.

[bkchr]

with codeowners to get something like the team approvals.

I'm against requiring a fixed set of people to approve certain changes. I mean we already see the bottleneck in Polkadot with the locks review. Or you just want to ping them?

[ggwpez]

I'm against requiring a fixed set of people to approve certain changes. I mean we already see the bottleneck in Polkadot with the locks review. Or you just want to ping them?

Hm okay. I was under the impression that the sdk-node team approvals work quite well in Substrate. The FRAME team now consists of ~13 people, so there is not such a big bottleneck i think.
WDYT @kianenigma ?

[bkchr]

I was under the impression that the sdk-node team approvals work quite well in Substrate.

There are no required approvals/CODEOWNERS from the team.

We can also create the team and add the people. I think parity should be able to pay these 3$ :D

[kianenigma]

I'm against requiring a fixed set of people to approve certain changes. I mean we already see the bottleneck in Polkadot with the locks review. Or you just want to ping them?

Hm okay. I was under the impression that the sdk-node team approvals work quite well in Substrate. The FRAME team now consists of ~13 people, so there is not such a big bottleneck i think. WDYT @kianenigma ?

If you look at the FRAME PRs, I think often the reviews come from the the actual 13 mentioned developers, but I think especially given the overlap with the common goods parachain, we might stall their work if we mandate @paritytech/frame-coders to approve their PRs.

If so, we can make one approval from @paritytech/frame-coders mandatory, but I would certainly say not two, at least not right now. Perhaps in 6-12 months, in the new mono-repo, we can revisit such a rule.

[juangirini]

If so, we can make one approval from https://github.com/orgs/paritytech/teams/frame-coders mandatory, but I would certainly say not two, at least not right now. Perhaps in 6-12 months, in the new mono-repo, we can revisit such a rule.

We can set such a rule but not in a granular way. What GitHub allows us to do is to ask an approval from the code owner(s) of the particular code we are touching, but that rule would apply to the entire repository, we can't specify which folders/files we want that rule to apply to.
So, if we add this rule, any code that has an owner will require its owner to give one approval for any PR touching it.

It looks like this is something we want to do in FRAME, but not sure if the other teams will be happy with this new rule.

@kianenigma @bkchr wdyt?

[bkchr]

https://github.com/paritytech/pr-custom-review should be able to set these granular rules.

[juangirini]

https://github.com/paritytech/pr-custom-review should be able to set these granular rules.

Oh that's great, thanks for pointing it out

[ggwpez]

@juangirini I think @s3krit is in the team only for historical reasons.
Could you please remove him from there? (also means less notifications for him 😆 )

[juangirini]

@juangirini I think @s3krit is in the team only for historical reasons. Could you please remove him from there? (also means less notifications for him 😆 )

happy for him 😄 just removed