For what will be checked, maybe we ask nicely that somebody hook us in to Apache Yetus and get a "standard" suite of checks for free, complete with automated feedback.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Dave Marion <dlmar...@comcast.net> wrote: > I have used Hadoop's documentation on this subject for submitting patches. > I'm not suggesting that we go to this level of detail, but as a new > contributor I know how to set up my IDE, what commands to run to create my > patch, and I know the items that are going to be checked at the start. > > > [1] https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute > > [2] https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/CodeReviewChecklist > > > > > > On June 5, 2017 at 1:19 PM Mike Miller <michaelpmil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I could be wrong, but it sounds like there are two different > > perspectives being discussed here and it may be helpful to try and > > separate the two. On one hand there are discussions of guidelines for > > reviewers (Dave's initial list, Keith's ideas) to follow and on the > > other hand, suggestions for contributors, which Christopher's list > > sounds more geared towards. Since everyone on this list has to wear > > both hats, I think each different point of view could benefit from > > some loose guidelines. > > > > For example, General Pull Request Guidelines for the Accumulo > community: > > When submitting a PR... please run these commands [...] before > > submitting to ensure code adheres to checkstyle and passes findbugs, > > etc > > When reviewing a PR... ensure dialog portrays how strongly the > > reviewer feels about the comment [Could = optional suggestion, Should > > = would be helpful but not blocking, Must = required] > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Dave Marion <dlmar...@comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think things can be improved when it comes to handling pull > requests. The point of this thread was to try and come up with something to > set expectations for the contributor. I figured the discussion would lead > to the modification of the existing example or to a new example. > Christopher provided a different example, but most of the feedback seemed > to indicate that this was not warranted. I'm not sure what else I can say > on the matter. If the majority thinks that its not a problem, then its not > a problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On June 5, 2017 at 12:39 PM Josh Elser < > josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
