[Docs] Introduce backend maintainer roles #674
Conversation
MAINTAINERS.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Requirements: | ||
| * Experience as Contributor in the specific backend for at least 6 months. | ||
| * Commit at least 25% of working time to the project. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we include this requirement, or just use the one below that says "Commits to being responsible for that specific backend" ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point! Removed the 25% commitment as likely there would not be as much work required for backend maintainers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the plan to also update CODEOWNERS to automatically add backend maintainers to PRs review?
I think ideally we would want to ping both backend maintainers and domain owners? I think this could be done if we add patterns such as:
/src/blas/backends/cublas/ @uxlfoundation/onemath-gpu-nvidia @uxlfoundation/onemath-blas-write
and similar for other backends and domains.
Good point! Yes, this absolutely should be done. I've made the updates to CODEOWNERS (and also updated the RFC to reflect this). Thanks! |
| @@ -37,6 +37,13 @@ | |||
| /include/oneapi/math/blas.hxx @uxlfoundation/onemath-blas-write | |||
| /include/oneapi/math/bfloat16.hpp @uxlfoundation/onemath-blas-write | |||
| /include/oneapi/mkl/blas.hpp @uxlfoundation/onemath-blas-write | |||
| /src/blas/backends/armpl/ @uxlfoundation/onemath-cpu-aarch64 @uxlfoundation/onemath-blas-write | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see error in github web view in this file, like
Unknown owner on line 40: make sure the team @uxlfoundation/onemath-cpu-aarch64 exists, is publicly visible, and has write access to the repository
Could it be that the teams are not yet created? I guess we need them before updating CODEOWNERS
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice find! I did wonder what would happen since these haven't been created yet...didn't realize GitHub was that smart in their web view. Thanks!! =)
If the RFC is approved, then I can request these GitHub teams to be created, and we can wait to merge this PR (with the documentation and codeowner changes) until that happens. Alternatively, I can separate out the codeowners changes to another PR. Unless there would be a long delay with creating the GitHub teams, my preference would be the former.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It makes sense to merge all together after RFC is approved and new teams are created.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW the RFC is already approved, isn't it? Or are we waiting for more feedback?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW the RFC is already approved, isn't it? Or are we waiting for more feedback?
I had put a decision date of May 31 for the RFC. So far only positive responses have been received. =)
Description
Related RFC: #673
Updates the CONTRIBUTING.md and MAINTAINERS.md files to introduce the new backend maintainer roles as described in the corresponding RFC. If approved, these roles will need to be created separately from this pull request:
@uxlfoundation/onemath-cpu-aarch64
@uxlfoundation/onemath-cpu-x64
@uxlfoundation/onemath-gpu-amd
@uxlfoundation/onemath-gpu-intel
@uxlfoundation/onemath-gpu-nvidia