If Accumulo had a CONTRIBUTING.md, then when someone opens a PR GH would offer a link to it.
https://help.github.com/articles/helping-people-contribute-to-your-project/ On Mon, Jun 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) >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >
