Is there a policy for pending review requests (ie. the ones already open at https://reviews.apache.org/groups/Ambari/ )? Should we open a PR for each, or should they be wrapped up on Review Board, or is it up to us?
Thanks. -Attila From: Vivek Ratnavel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, January 5, 2018 at 12:16 AM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Future code review and commit process Further clarifications: - Creating the fork https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/ - Creating a branch for every commit (and creating the pull request) https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-from-a-fork/ - How to keep your fork in-sync with the upstream repository https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/ - How long-lived Apache feature branches will work in this model. In this case, we'd still need a branch off of the feature branch for every commit from the fork. In this workflow, a feature branch is no different than any other branch. If you want a commit to land in a branch, then you create a new branch based off that branch. You create multiple branches if you want your commits to land in multiple branches. It might sound like a daunting task initially, but believe me, its very easy and straightforward to create a branch and open pull requests for review. And once a pull request is opened, you can make changes by simply pushing commits to the same branch. - How to merge long-lived feature branches into Apache Feature branches or any other branch could be merged with trunk or any branch by creating a new pull request. A new pull request could be opened by selecting two branches - a base branch and a head branch. In this case, if you want to merge a feature branch with trunk, then you select feature branch as base branch and trunk as head branch. I have attached a screen-shot for reference. [cid:ii_jc13wnyl0_160c3724ae47072e] I agree with you on creating a wiki page to cover all the scenarios. Thanks, Vivek Ratnavel On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Jonathan Hurley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks for the clarifications. This sounds like the "Forking Workflow" as opposed to the "Feature Branch Workflow". I'm fine with that since it lets non-commiters help. We should try to capture all of these scenarios in a wiki page which we can then all agree upon. Things which we need to cover are: - Creating the fork - Creating a branch for every commit (and creating the pull request) - How to keep your fork in-sync with the upstream repository - How long-lived Apache feature branches will work in this model. In this case, we'd still need a branch off of the feature branch for every commit from the fork. - How to merge long-lived feature branches into Apache A few of the items above haven't been specified yet - like keeping the forked repo in sync and how to manage long-lived feature branches in Apache. I still do not think we need [component-1][component-2] in the commit message. We can use the fields in Apache Jira for this. It makes our commit messages long, hard to read, and ugly. > On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:57 PM, Vivek Ratnavel > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Let me clarify a few things here. > > > - Before opening any pull requests, one needs to fork > https://github.com/apache/ambari. This is a one time process. > - Before working on any JIRA, lets say AMBARI-12345, one needs to create > a branch from their own fork. Everyone can have their own naming > conventions to name this branch since this is not going to affect the > public repository in any way. > - To answer Nate's question, if a JIRA has to be committed to branch-2.6 > and trunk, one needs to create two branches from their own fork - a branch > based on branch-2.6 and another branch based on trunk. Let's name them > AMBARI-12345-branch-2.6 and AMBARI-12345-trunk. Again this could be > anything as long as you can differentiate. > - After committing patches to both the newly created branches, you need > to open two pull requests against two public branches - branch2.6 and > trunk. This link should help - > https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-from-a-fork/ > - If there is no conflict, github offers "squash and merge" option which > will let you remove unnecessary commit messages and merge any number of > commits as one commit. For more info - > https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-merges > > Hope this clarifies the flow. > > To clarify Jonathan's suggestion > > * I do not think that adding a [COMPONENT] tag is useful. Many commits span > ambari-server and ambari-agent, and a good number also span ambari-web and > ambari-server. I also think that we should have the title of the JIra match > the commit exactly as we do today. > > If a commit spans multiple components, lets say ambari-server and > ambari-web, the PR title should be [AMBARI-12345][ambari-server][ambari-web] > Title. This is especially useful to categorize the open pull requests based > on their components, so that other folks working in those components can > work on clearing those open pull requests. > > Please let me know if you need more clarification on anything discussed > here. > > Thanks, > Vivek Ratnavel > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Nate Cole > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Please also clarify the following scenario: >> >> I’m working on a fix for branch-2.6, and when I’m done, I need to merge to >> trunk. >> >> What is the flow? >> - Create a fork >> - Commit to branch-2.6 (on my fork) >> - Commit to trunk (on my fork) >> - Create pull request to bring changes to both branches? >> Or >> - Create a fork >> - Commit to branch-2.6 (on my fork) >> - Create pull request >> - Commit to trunk (on my fork) >> - Create pull request >> >> This is exposing my git n00bness >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1/4/18, 11:32 AM, "Attila Doroszlai" >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >>> * Since this new flow model requires a branch for a commit, we >> should enforce a naming strategy. These short-lived feature branches for >> commits must be easy to find and remove. We should also make the community >> aware that once you have had your pull request merged, you should get rid >> of your branch. As for branch naming conventions, I haven't thought through >> it very much, but perhaps simply the name of the associated JIRA, such as >> AMBARI-12345. >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the branch to be merged should be created >> in your own fork, not in the apache/ambari repo. Otherwise non-committers >> would not be able to create pull requests. I think this eliminates the >> need to coordinate branch naming, although some convention or pattern would >> be helpful anyway. >> >> -Attila >> >> >>
