Skip to content
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.

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

Change of maintainers for checker and kernel #7346

Closed
Zimmi48 opened this issue Apr 25, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

Change of maintainers for checker and kernel #7346

Zimmi48 opened this issue Apr 25, 2018 · 5 comments
Labels
kind: meta About the process of developing Coq.

Comments

@Zimmi48
Copy link
Member

Zimmi48 commented Apr 25, 2018

@barras is listed as the primary maintainer for the checker (and @maximedenes as the second one) and as the secondary maintainer for the kernel (and @maximedenes as the primary one) but he hasn't answered to #7032 (which basically amounts to a "No"). He has also never participated to the development since it moved to GitHub and his last commit predates the 8.5 release. So it means that we are currently without a primary maintainer for the checker and a secondary maintainer for the kernel.

Possible candidates: @mattam82 @ppedrot @SkySkimmer

coq/.github/CODEOWNERS

Lines 55 to 56 in 72d6d5e

/checker/ @barras
# Secondary maintainer @maximedenes

coq/.github/CODEOWNERS

Lines 91 to 92 in 72d6d5e

/kernel/ @maximedenes
# Secondary maintainer @barras

@Zimmi48 Zimmi48 added the kind: meta About the process of developing Coq. label Apr 25, 2018
@Zimmi48
Copy link
Member Author

Zimmi48 commented Apr 25, 2018

Pending on some IRL chat with @barras to know what his plans wrt to Coq are.

@ppedrot
Copy link
Member

ppedrot commented Apr 25, 2018

I already said that somewhere, but I believe that we need to involve as many persons as possible for the kernel and for the checker. Only one main owner does not reflect the complexity of the kernel internals, as devs typically have knowledge over a subset of the several components from the kernel (e.g. universes, inductive types, VM, conversion...).

@Zimmi48
Copy link
Member Author

Zimmi48 commented Apr 25, 2018

If these subsets correspond to different files it is easy using GitHub CODEOWNER file to specify more than one maintainer for the kernel. For instance, we could put @SkySkimmer as a maintainer for kernel/univ.ml{,i}.
Otherwise, we can just expect people to comment / review PRs whenever they are competent even if they are not official maintainers. The maintainer's role is just to manage the reviewing / merging process. This requires the maintainer to be reactive but it doesn't mean that this person is the only one who must review.

@SkySkimmer
Copy link
Contributor

Separate maintainers for univ stuff | VM and native stuff | other kernel stuff sounds reasonable.
It kind of resembles our part: labels too.

@Zimmi48
Copy link
Member Author

Zimmi48 commented Aug 20, 2018

This has been mostly solved. @barras is still listed as a secondary maintainer of the kernel if he ever wants to come back but we don't depend on him.

@Zimmi48 Zimmi48 closed this as completed Jan 25, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind: meta About the process of developing Coq.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants