# Initial analysis of Extras PRs, and next steps **URL:** \ **Category:** Ansible Developer\ **Created:** [May 13, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/initial-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-next-steps/18223 "2015-05-13T17:06:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Greg\_DeKoenigsberg1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/838e76/32.png) [@Greg\_DeKoenigsberg1](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Greg_DeKoenigsberg1)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/initial-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-next-steps/18223/1 "2015-05-13T17:06:32Z")
OK, so I created a label called "owner\_pr" for all PRs in Extras that were submitted by the module owners. I then went through and found all open PRs against extant modules that were submitted by the original authors of those modules. I found 5. 🙂 On the other hand, there are \*91\* new module requests. So here are some of my thoughts now: 1. I now believe we should require email and github-id in the author field. With that data, it will be much easier to ping module authors in the PR itself to say "hey, as the author of this module, you're the closest thing to the 'owner' -- can you look at this PR please?" (Which may turn up a few unresponsive maintainers. I'd be okay with that new data.) If anyone can think of any compelling reason \*not\* to add github-id to the Author field, I'll entertain it -- and in the absence of negative feedback in the next day or two, I think I'm just going to Just Go Do That. 2. The process around approving new modules is more urgent than I previously realized. Fortunately, I think there's a lot of good communication in these modules, and some of them are modules that, under the new policy of "accepting new modules by people who have already written modules," would be pulled in immediately. So my next step is to go through and tease out some more of this data. That will be in my next report to the list. --g ---
**Author:** ![Brian\_Coca](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@Brian\_Coca](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Brian_Coca)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/initial-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-next-steps/18223/2 "2015-05-13T17:21:58Z")
on 1), I think it's fine, we can even just lookup the commit that added the module to get the github id. on 2) I already pulled in all extras PRs (5) that I saw of a module author that already conforms to the rules (resmo), another author would qualify but his PRs do not seem to have adjusted yet (emonty). I'll look over the ones you tagged after lunch and try to knock them out. ---
**Author:** ![Rob\_White](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@Rob\_White](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Rob_White)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 2:27am UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/initial-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-next-steps/18223/3 "2015-05-14T02:27:47Z")
Thanks Greg - it looks like you’re doing lots of work to get the extras PR flow moving 🙂 @greg do you want us to update currently pending PRs with updated author info? E.g. Author: Rob White (@wimnat) @brian when you say “already confirms to the rules”, to what rules are you referring? ---
**Author:** ![Brian\_Coca](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@Brian\_Coca](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Brian_Coca)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/initial-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-next-steps/18223/4 "2015-05-14T03:51:57Z")
@rob, PRs that were pending owned by module authors that already were consistently conforming to our requirements. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_DeKoenigsberg1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/838e76/32.png) [@Greg\_DeKoenigsberg1](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Greg_DeKoenigsberg1)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 3:56am UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/initial-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-next-steps/18223/5 "2015-05-14T03:56:54Z")
> Thanks Greg - it looks like you're doing lots of work to get the extras PR > flow moving 🙂 No, the thinking is the work. This is just typing, LOL. > @greg do you want us to update currently pending PRs with updated author > info? E.g. Author: Rob White (@wimnat) Sure, that would be great. > @brian when you say "already confirms to the rules", to what rules are you > referring? I think he was referring to the "owner\_prs" that I tagged earlier -- i.e. "PR requests to an existing module made by that module's owner." --g