Perhaps this discussion would be better served if you gave some concrete
suggestions on how you think things can/should be improved.
e.g. Mike's suggestion of using the maven-checkstyle-plugin earlier, why
not focus on that? Does this (still) work with the build? If so, how do
we get that run automagically via travis or jenkins?
To me, it seems like you either wanted to throw some shade or you are
genuinely concerned about a problem that others are not (yet?) concerned
about. I doubt re-focusing contribution processes for efficiency would
be met with disapproval.
On 6/5/17 12:32 PM, Dave Marion wrote:
The main entrance to the community for new contributors is through pull
requests. I have seen PR's approved in an inconsistent manner. My intent was to
make known the expectations for new contributions so that newcomers don't get
discouraged by the amount of feedback and/or changes requested while providing
some guidelines to make it more consistent. It seems that there is not a desire
to do this for various reasons. That's fine by me and I'm willing to drop the
discussion here.
On June 5, 2017 at 12:14 PM "Marc P." <marc.par...@gmail.com> wrote:
Turner and Tubbs,
You both piqued my interest and I agree. There's something important in
what both said regarding the discussion and importance of a particular change.
Style changes most likely aren't deal breakers unless it is terribly confusing,
but I would leave that up to the reviewer and developer to discuss.
Dave,
I'm sure your intent is good and you goal isn't the handcuff reviewers.
Is your concern over a stalemate on something such as a code style? Would a
discussion not be the remedy for this?
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com
mailto:ke...@deenlo.com > wrote:
> > Sometimes I use review comments to just ask questions about things
I
don't understand. Sometimes when looking at a code review, I have a
thought about the change that I know is a subjective opinion. In this
case I want to share my thought, in case they find it useful.
However, I don't care if a change is made or not. Sometimes I think a
change must be made. I try to communicate my intentions, but its
wordy, slow, and I don't think I always succeed.
Given there are so many ways the comments on a review can be used, I
think it can be difficult to quickly know the intentions of the
reviewer. I liked review board's issues, I think they helped with
this problem. A reviewer could make comments and issues. The issues
made it clear what the reviewer thought must be done vs discussion.
Issues made reviews more efficient by making the intentions clear AND
separating important concerns from lots of discussion.
When I submit a PR and it has lots of comments, towards the end I go
back and look through all of the comments to make sure I didn't miss
anything important. Its annoying to have to do this. Is there
anything we could do in GH to replicate this and help separate the
signal from the noise?
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Dave Marion <dlmar...@comcast.net
mailto:dlmar...@comcast.net > wrote:
> I propose that we define a set of guidelines to use when reviewing
pull requests. In doing so, contributors will be able to determine potential
issues in their code possibly reducing the number of changes that occur before
acceptance. Here's an example to start the discussion:
>
>
> Items a reviewer should look for:
>
> 1. Adherence to code formatting rules (link to formatting rules)
>
> 2. Unit tests required
>
> 3. Threading issues
>
> 4. Performance implications
>
>
> Items that should not block acceptance:
>
> 1. Stylistic changes that have no performance benefit
>
> 2. Addition of features outside the scope of the ticket (moving the
goal post, discussion should lead to ticket creation)
>
