...
The review board will be made up of no fewer than five four members. Other individuals who are not members of the review board can also volunteer to provide reviews, as time permits.
Reviewers ensure that contributions to FOLIO Analytics abide by the repository's guidelines for contributing. Contributors will contact the review board directly when there is a submission in need of review [using a dedicated FOLIO analytics review board channel on the Metadb/LDP Slack]Reviewers will check for new PRs at least once a week. Reviewers can claim a PR if they expect to have time to complete the review in the next week. Reviewers will outline any necessary changes clearly and communicate them to contributors in a timely manner. Contributors can reach out if more than one week passes with no reviewers assigned. If a reviewer ends up not having enough time to complete a review, another reviewer can volunteer to complete that review.
Expected time commitment: [???] hours per week1-2 hours per week, though this may increase as the deadline approaches
Timeline: Contributions to the FOLIO Analytics repository can be submitted at any time, and reviewers will review submissions as they come in. About two weeks before the planned FOLIO release date, the FOLIO Analytics repository will freeze any new submissions and transition to testing. During the testing phase, no new enhancements* will be approved for inclusion in the release, but any bugs uncovered during testing should be addressed, submitted, and approved quickly. For reviewers, this means that the two weeks before the release date are times when a quick turnaround on reviews is required.
Members of the review board will be recruited until the five spots are filled. An optional training will be scheduled when the review board is complete.
If you would like to serve as a member of the review board, please contact ( the conveners? Nassib? both?)
Add additional info about release contents and timeline? Or just put this in training?
...
SIG conveners.
* Submissions to FOLIO Analytics could represent enhancements - changes that simply add functionality to the repository - or bugs - errors in the repository files that either prevent queries from running or produce inaccurate results. Reviewers should prioritize reviews for bugs over
...
enhancements
...
.
...
Training topics (training still needs to be developed/scheduled)
- Identify a pull request that need needs a review
- Assign yourself to review a pull request
- Reviewing a pull request using the check list
- Communicating with a PR submitter
- Adding test data to the reference environment
- Differences between LDP1 and Metadb queries to look out for
- Logistics: connecting to the test environments in DBeaver (URLs, etc.)