Maintainers

Overview

Please treat this content as a living document.

This is document explains who the maintainers are, their responsibilities, and how they should be doing it. If you're interested in contributing, see Contributing document.

Current Maintainers

Maintainer	GitHub ID	Affiliation
Andrea Amorosi	dreamorosi	Amazon
Alexander Schueren	am29d	Amazon
Simon Thulbourn	sthulb	Amazon

Emeritus

Previous active maintainers who contributed to this project.

Maintainer	GitHub ID	Affiliation
Sara Gerion	saragerion	Amazon
Florian Chazal	flochaz	Amazon
Chadchapol Vittavutkarnvej	ijemmy	Booking.com
Alan Churley	alan-churley	CloudCall
Michael Bahr	bahrmichael	Stedi

Labels

These are the most common labels used by maintainers to triage issues, pull requests (PR), and for project management:

Label	Usage	Notes
triage	New issues that require maintainers review	Issue template
area/documentation	Improvements or additions to documentation	Examples/Readme files; Doc additions, fixes, etc.;
area/logger	Items related to the Logger Utility	PR automation
area/metrics	Items related to the Metrics Utility	PR automation
area/tracer	Items related to the Tracer Utility	PR automation
area/idempotency	Items related to the Idempotency Utility	PR automation
area/parameters	Items related to the Parameters Utility	PR automation
area/commons	Items related to the Commons Utility	PR automation
area/jmespath	Items related to the JMESPath Utility	PR automation
area/validation	Items related to the Validation Utility	PR automation
area/batch	Items related to the Batch Processing Utility	PR automation
area/parser	Items related to the Parser Utility	PR automation
area/automation	Items related to automation like GitHub workflows or CI/CD	PR automation
area/layers	Items related to the Lambda Layers pipeline	PR automation
size/XS	PRs between 0-9 LOC	PR automation
size/S	PRs between 10-29 LOC	PR automation
size/M	PRs between 30-99 LOC	PR automation
size/L	PRs between 100-499 LOC	PR automation
size/XL	PRs between 500-999 LOC, often PRs that grown with feedback	PR automation
size/XXL	PRs with 1K+ LOC, largely documentation related	PR automation
customer-reference	Authorization to use company name in our documentation	Public Relations
community-content	Suggested content to feature in our documentation	Public Relations
do-not-merge	PRs that are blocked for varying reasons	Timeline is uncertain
type/bug	Unexpected, reproducible and unintended software behavior	PR/Release automation; Doc snippets are excluded;
type/bug-upstream	Bug caused by upstream dependency
type/not-a-bug	New and existing bug reports incorrectly submitted as bug	Analytics
type/deprecation	This item contains code deprecation
type/duplicate	This issue is a duplicate of an existing one	Analytics
type/feature-request	Issue requesting new or enhancements to existing features	Issue template
type/feature	PRs that introduce new features	PR automation
type/enhancement	PRs that introduce minor changes, usually to existing features	PR automation
type/RFC	Technical design documents related to a feature request
type/internal	PRs that introduce changes in governance, tech debt and chores (linting setup, baseline, etc.)	PR automation
type/tests	PRs that add or change tests	PR automation
type/dependencies	Changes that touch dependencies, e.g. Dependabot, etc.	Issues/PR automation
type/breaking-change	Changes that will cause customer impact and need careful triage
status/blocked	Items which progress is blocked by external dependency or reason
status/confirmed	Items with clear scope and that are ready for implementation
status/discussing	Items that need to be discussed, elaborated, or refined
status/on-hold	Items that are on hold and will be revisited in the future
status/pending-release	Merged changes that will be available soon	Release automation auto-closes/notifies it
status/completed	Items that are complete and have been merged and/or shipped
status/rejected	This is something we will not be working on. At least, not in the measurable future
status/pending-close-response-required	This issue will be closed soon unless the discussion moves forward	Stale Automation
revisit-in-3-months	Blocked issues/PRs that need to be revisited	Often related to need-customer-feedback, prioritization, etc.
good-first-issue	Something that is suitable for those who want to start contributing
help-wanted	Tasks you want help from anyone to move forward	Bandwidth, complex topics, etc.
need-customer-feedback	Tasks that need more feedback before proceeding	80/20% rule, uncertain, etc.
need-more-information	Missing information before making any calls	Signal that investigation or answers are needed
need-response	Requires a response from a customer and might be automatically closed if none is received	Marked as stale after 2 weeks, and closed after 3
need-issue	PR is missing a related issue for tracking change

Maintainer Responsibilities

Maintainers are active and visible members of the community, and have maintain-level permissions on a repository. Use those privileges to serve the community and evolve code as follows.

Be aware of recurring ambiguous situations and document them to help your fellow maintainers.

Uphold Code of Conduct

Model the behavior set forward by the Code of Conduct and raise any violations to other maintainers and admins. There could be unusual circumstances where inappropriate behavior does not immediately fall within the Code of Conduct.

These might be nuanced and should be handled with extra care - when in doubt, do not engage and reach out to other maintainers and admins.

Prioritize Security

Security is your number one priority. Maintainer's Github keys must be password protected securely and any reported security vulnerabilities are addressed before features or bugs.

Note that this repository is monitored and supported 24/7 by Amazon Security, see Reporting a Vulnerability for details.

Review Pull Requests

Review pull requests regularly, comment, suggest, reject, merge and close. Accept only high quality pull-requests. Provide code reviews and guidance on incoming pull requests.

PRs are labeled based on file changes and semantic title. Pay attention to whether labels reflect the current state of the PR and correct accordingly.

Use and enforce semantic versioning pull request titles, as these will be used for CHANGELOG and Release notes - make sure they communicate their intent at the human level.

For issues linked to a PR, make sure status/pending-release label is applied to them when merging. Upon release, these issues will be notified which release version contains their change.

See Common scenarios section for additional guidance.

Triage New Issues

Manage labels, review issues regularly, and create new labels as needed by the project. Remove triage label when you're able to confirm the validity of a request, a bug can be reproduced, etc. Give priority to the original author for implementation, unless it is a sensitive task that is best handled by maintainers.

Make sure issues are assigned to our board of activities and have the right status.

Use our labels to signal good first issues to new community members, and to set expectation that this might need additional feedback from the author, other customers, experienced community members and/or maintainers.

Be aware of casual contributors and recurring contributors. Provide the experience and attention you wish you had if you were starting in open source.

See Common scenarios section for additional guidance.

Triage Bug Reports

Be familiar with our definition of bug. If it's not a bug, you can close it or adjust its title and labels - always communicate the reason accordingly.

For bugs caused by upstream dependencies, replace type/bug with type/bug-upstream label. Ask the author whether they'd like to raise the issue upstream or if they prefer us to do so.

Assess the impact and make the call on whether we need an emergency release. Contact other maintainers when in doubt.

See Common scenarios section for additional guidance.

Triage RFCs

RFC is a collaborative process to help us get to the most optimal solution given the context. Their purpose is to ensure everyone understands what this context is, their trade-offs, and alternative solutions that were part of the research before implementation begins.

Make sure you ask these questions in mind when reviewing:

• Does it use our RFC template?
• Does the match our Tenets?
• Does the proposal address the use case? If so, is the recommended usage explicit?
• Does it focus on the mechanics to solve the use case over fine-grained implementation details?
• Can anyone familiar with the code base implement it?
• If approved, are they interested in contributing? Do they need any guidance?
• Does this significantly increase the overall project maintenance? Do we have the skills to maintain it?
• If we can't take this use case, are there alternative projects we could recommend? Or does it call for a new project altogether?

When necessary, be upfront that the time to review, approve, and implement a RFC can vary - see Contribution is stuck. Some RFCs may be further updated after implementation, as certain areas become clearer.

Some examples using our initial and new RFC templates: #447

Releasing a new version

Firstly, make sure all the PRs that you want to include in the release are merged into the main branch.

Next, run the integration tests one last time to make sure everything is working as expected. See Run end to end tests for more details.

Looks good, what's next?

Kickoff the Make Release workflow with the intended version - this might take around 20m-25m to complete.

Once complete, you can start drafting the release notes to let customers know what changed and what's in it for them (a.k.a why they should care). We have guidelines in the release notes section so you know what good looks like.

NOTE: Documentation might take a few minutes to reflect the latest version due to caching and CDN invalidations.

Release process visualized

Every release makes dozens of checks, linting, canaries and deployments - all of these are automated.

This is a close visual representation of the main steps (GitHub Actions UI should be the source of truth), along with the approximate time it takes for each key step to complete.

gantt

title      Release process
dateFormat HH:mm
axisFormat %H:%M

Release start   : milestone, m1, 10:00,2m

section QA
    Quality checks                : active, 2.4m

section Build
    Bundle release artifact (CJS) : active, 39s

section Git release
    Bump package version          : active, 8s
    Package release               : active, 8s
    Git Tag                       : active, 8s
    Push Tag                      : active, 8s

section Release
    Attest build                  : active, 8s
    Sign attestation              : active, attestation, 10:06, 8s
    Publish npm.js                : active, npm, after attestation, 29s

npmjs.com release : milestone, m2, 10:06,1s

section Layer release
    Build                         : active, layer_build, 10:08, 6m
    Deploy Beta                   : active, layer_beta, after layer_build, 4.3m
    Run Canary Test               : active, layer_canary, after layer_beta, 1.4m
    Deploy Prod                   : active, layer_prod, after layer_canary, 4.3m

Layer release : milestone, m3, 10:24,1s

section Docs
    Create commit (Layer ARN)     : active, 10:24, 8s
    Release versioned docs        : active, 2.4m

Documentation release : milestone, m4, 10:26,1m

Release complete : milestone, m5, 10:26, 2m

Drafting release notes

Visit the Releases page and choose the edit pencil button.

Make sure the tag field reflects the new version you're releasing, the target branch field is set to main, and release title matches your tag e.g., v1.14.1.

You'll notice we group all changes based on their labels like type/feature, type/bug, area/documentation, etc.

I spotted a typo or incorrect grouping - how do I fix it?

Edit the respective PR title and update their labels. Then run the Release Drafter workflow to update the Draft release.

Note

This won't change the CHANGELOG as the merge commit is immutable. Don't worry about it. We'd only rewrite git history only if this can lead to confusion and we'd pair with another maintainer.

All looking good, what's next?

The best part comes now. Replace the placeholder [Human readable summary of changes] with what you'd like to communicate to customers what this release is all about. Rule of thumb: always put yourself in the customers shoes.

These are some questions to keep in mind when drafting your first or future release notes:

• Can customers understand at a high level what changed in this release?
• Is there a link to the documentation where they can read more about each main change?
• Are there any graphics or code snippets that can enhance readability?
• Are we calling out any key contributor(s) to this release?
  • All contributors are automatically credited, use this as an exceptional case to feature them

Once you're happy, hit Publish release 🎉🎉🎉.

This will kick off the Post Release workflow and within a few minutes you should see all issues labeled as status/pending-release notified of the new release and labeled as status/completed.

Run end to end tests

Note

We are planning to automate this process in the future so that tests are run automatically when a PR is merged, see #1149

E2E tests should be ran before every merge to main or manually via Run e2e Tests workflow before making a release.

To run locally, you need AWS CDK CLI and an account bootstrapped (cdk bootstrap). With a default AWS CLI profile configured, or AWS_PROFILE environment variable set, run make e2e tests.

For more information on how the tests are structured and how they can be run locally, see Integration Tests.

Releasing a documentation hotfix

You can rebuild the latest documentation without a full release via this GitHub Actions Workflow. Choose Run workflow, keep main as the branch, and input the latest Powertools for AWS Lambda (TypeScript) version available.

This workflow will update both user guide and API documentation.

Maintain Overall Health of the Repo

Keep the main branch at production quality at all times. Backport features as needed. Cut release branches and tags to enable future patches.

Manage Roadmap

See Roadmap section

Ensure the repo highlights features that should be elevated to the project roadmap. Be clear about the feature’s status, priority, target version, and whether or not it should be elevated to the roadmap.

Add Continuous Integration Checks

Add integration checks that validate pull requests and pushes to ease the burden on Pull Request reviewers. Continuously revisit areas of improvement to reduce operational burden in all parties involved.

Negative Impact on the Project

Actions that negatively impact the project will be handled by the admins, in coordination with other maintainers, in balance with the urgency of the issue. Examples would be Code of Conduct violations, deliberate harmful or malicious actions, spam, monopolization, and security risks.

Becoming a maintainer

We need to improve our understanding of how other projects are doing, their mechanisms to promote key contributors, and how they interact daily.

We suspect this process might look similar to the OpenSearch project and will revisit this in late 2024.

Common scenarios

These are recurring ambiguous situations that new and existing maintainers may encounter. They serve as guidance. It is up to each maintainer to follow, adjust, or handle in a different manner as long as our conduct is consistent

Contribution is stuck

A contribution can get stuck often due to lack of bandwidth and language barrier. For bandwidth issues, check whether the author needs help. Make sure you get their permission before pushing code into their existing PR - do not create a new PR unless strictly necessary.

For language barrier and others, offer a 1:1 chat to get them unblocked. Often times, English might not be their primary language, and writing in public might put them off, or come across not the way they intended to be.

In other cases, you may have constrained capacity. Use help-wanted label when you want to signal other maintainers and external contributors that you could use a hand to move it forward.

Insufficient feedback or information

When in doubt, use need-more-information or need-customer-feedback labels to signal more context and feedback are necessary before proceeding. You can also use revisit-in-3-months label when you expect it might take a while to gather enough information before you can decide.

Note that issues marked as need-response will be automatically closed after 3 weeks of inactivity.

Crediting contributions

We credit all contributions as part of each release note as an automated process. If you find contributors are missing from the release note you're producing, please add them manually.

Is that a bug?

A bug produces incorrect or unexpected results at runtime that differ from its intended behavior. Bugs must be reproducible. They directly affect customers experience at runtime despite following its recommended usage.

Documentation snippets, use of internal components, or unadvertised functionalities are not considered bugs.

Mentoring contributions

Always favor mentoring issue authors to contribute, unless they're not interested or the implementation is sensitive (e.g., complexity, time to release, etc.).

Make use of help-wanted and good-first-issue to signal additional contributions the community can help.

Long running issues or PRs

Try offering a 1:1 call in the attempt to get to a mutual understanding and clarify areas that maintainers could help.

In the rare cases where both parties don't have the bandwidth or expertise to continue, it's best to use the status/on-hold or revisit-in-3-months labels. After some time has passed, see if it's possible to break the PR or issue in smaller chunks, and eventually close if there is no progress.