Guess we can all go home then. Our work here is done: [cid:image001.png@01D2C024.5F2A5090]
W.R.T the discussion below, I think rolling back an improperly reviewed PR could be considered disrespectful to the committer who merged it in the first place. I think that such situations, unless they trigger a disaster, should be handled by communicating the error to the responsible party and then allowing them to resolve it. E.g. I improperly commit an unreviewed PR, someone notices and sends me an email informing me of my error, and I then have the responsibility of unrolling the change and getting the appropriate review. I think we should start with the premise that we’re here in the spirit of collaboration and we should create opportunities for individuals to learn from their mistakes, recognize the importance of particular standards (e.g. good review process leads to stable projects), and ultimately internalize these ethics. Internally to our team, we’ve had great success with a policy requiring two PR approvals and not allowing the creator of a patch to be the one to merge their PR. While this might feel a little silly, it definitely helps to build collaboration, familiarity with the code base, and intrinsically avoids PRs being merged too quickly (without a sufficient period for review). - Ilya Ganelin [id:image001.png@01D1F7A4.F3D42980] From: Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com> Reply-To: "dev@apex.apache.org" <dev@apex.apache.org> Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:09 AM To: "dev@apex.apache.org" <dev@apex.apache.org> Subject: Re: PR merge policy On a lighter note, looks like the powers that be have been listening on this conversation and decided to force push an empty repo or maybe github just decided that this is the best proposal ;) On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Vlad Rozov <v.ro...@datatorrent.com<mailto:v.ro...@datatorrent.com>> wrote: In this case please propose how to deal with PR merge policy violations in the future. I will -1 proposal to commit an improvement on top of a commit. Thank you, Vlad On 4/27/17 21:48, Pramod Immaneni wrote: I am sorry but I am -1 on the force push in this case. On Apr 27, 2017, at 9:27 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org<mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote: +1 as measure of last resort. On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Vlad Rozov <v.ro...@datatorrent.com<mailto:v.ro...@datatorrent.com>> wrote: IMO, force push will bring enough consequent embarrassment to avoid such behavior in the future. Thank you, Vlad On 4/27/17 21:16, Munagala Ramanath wrote: My thought was that leaving the bad commit would be a permanent reminder to the committer (and others) that a policy violation occurred and the consequent embarrassment would be an adequate deterrent. Ram On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Vlad Rozov <v.ro...@datatorrent.com<mailto:v.ro...@datatorrent.com>> wrote: I also was under impression that everyone agreed to the policy that gives everyone in the community a chance to raise a concern or to propose an improvement to a PR. Unfortunately, it is not the case, and we need to discuss it again. I hope that this discussion will lead to no future violations so we don't need to forcibly undo such commits, but it will be good for the community to agree on the policy that deals with violations. Ram, committing an improvement on top of a commit should be discouraged, not encouraged as it eventually leads to the policy violation and lousy PR reviews. Thank you, Vlad On 4/27/17 20:54, Thomas Weise wrote: I also thought that everybody was in agreement about that after the first round of discussion and as you say it would be hard to argue against it. And I think we should not have to be back to the same topic a few days later. While you seem to be focussed on the disagreement on policy violation, I'm more interested in a style of collaboration that does not require such discussion. Thomas On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Munagala Ramanath <r...@datatorrent.com<mailto:r...@datatorrent.com> wrote: Everybody seems agreed on what the committers should do -- that waiting a day or two for others to have a chance to comment seems like an entirely reasonable thing. The disagreement is about what to do when that policy is violated. Ram On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org<mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote: Forced push should not be necessary if committers follow the development process. So why not focus on what the committer should do? Development process and guidelines are there for a reason, and the issue was raised before. In this specific case, there is a string of commits related to the plugin feature that IMO should be part of the original review. There wasn't any need to rush this, the change wasn't important for the release. Thomas On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Munagala Ramanath < r...@datatorrent.com<mailto:r...@datatorrent.com> wrote: I agree with Pramod that force pushing should be a rare event done only when there is an immediate need to undo something serious. Doing it just for a policy violation should itself be codified in our policies as a policy violation. Why not just commit an improvement on top ? Ram On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Vlad Rozov <v.ro...@datatorrent.com<mailto:v.ro...@datatorrent.com> wrote: Violation of the PR merge policy is a sufficient reason to forcibly undo the commit and such violations affect everyone in the community. Thank you, Vlad On 4/27/17 19:36, Pramod Immaneni wrote: I agree that PRs should not be merged without a chance for others to review. I don't agree to force push and altering the commit tree unless it is absolutely needed, as it affects everyone. This case doesn't warrant this step, one scenario where a force push might be needed is if somebody pushed some copyrighted code. Thanks On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Vlad Rozov < v.ro...@datatorrent.com<mailto:v.ro...@datatorrent.com>> wrote: I am open to both approaches - two commits or a join commit. Both have pros and cons that we may discuss. What I am strongly against are PRs that are merged without a chance for other contributors/committers to review. There should be a way to forcibly undo such commits. Thank you, Vlad On 4/27/17 12:41, Pramod Immaneni wrote: My comments inline.. On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org<mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote: I'm -1 on using the author field like this in Apex for the reason stated (it is also odd to see something like this showing up without prior discussion). I am not set on this for future commits but would like to say, do we really verify the author field and treat it with importance. For example, I don't think we ever check if the author is the person they say they are, check name, email etc. If I were to use slightly different variations of my name or email (not that I would do that) would reviewers really verify that. I also have checked that tools don't fail on reading a commit because author needs to be in a certain format. I guess contribution stats are the ones that will be affected but if used rarely I dont see that being a big problem. I can understand if we wanted to have strict requirements for the committer field. Thanks Consider adding the additional author information to the commit message. Thomas On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Pramod Immaneni < pra...@datatorrent.com<mailto:pra...@datatorrent.com>> wrote: Agreed it is not regular and should only be used in special circumstances. One example of this is pair programming. It has been done before in other projects and searching on google or stackoverflow you can see how other people have tried to handle it https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=375536 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=451880 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7442112/attributing- a-single-commit-to-multiple-developers Thanks On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org<mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote: commit 9856080ede62a4529d730bcb6724c757f5010990 Author: Pramod Immaneni & Vlad Rozov <pramod+v.rozov@datatorrent. com Date: Tue Apr 18 09:37:22 2017 -0700 Please don't use the author field in such a way, it leads to incorrect tracking of contributions. Either have separate commits or have one author. Thanks On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Pramod Immaneni < pra...@datatorrent.com<mailto:pra...@datatorrent.com> wrote: The issue was two different plugin models were developed, one for pre-launch and other for post-launch. I felt that the one built latter was better and it would be better to have a uniform interface for the users and hence asked for the changes. On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org<mailto:t...@apache.org> wrote: I think the plugins feature could have benefited from better original review, which would have eliminated much of the back and forth after the fact. On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Vlad Rozov < v.ro...@datatorrent.com<mailto:v.ro...@datatorrent.com> wrote: Pramod, No, it is not a request to update the apex.apache.org<http://apex.apache.org> (to do that we need to file JIRA). It is a reminder that it is against Apex policy to merge PR without giving enough time for others to review it (few hours after PR was open). Thank you, Vlad On 4/27/17 08:05, Pramod Immaneni wrote: Vlad, are you asking for a consensus on the policy to make it official (publish on website etc). I believe we have one. However, I did not see much difference between what you said on Mar 26th to what I proposed on Mar 24th. Is the main difference any committer can merge (not just the main reviewer) as long as there are no objections from others. In that case, I am fine with it. On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Vlad Rozov < v.ro...@datatorrent.com<mailto:v.ro...@datatorrent.com>> wrote: This is a friendly reminder regarding PR merge policy. Thank you, Vlad On 3/23/17 12:58, Vlad Rozov wrote: Lately there were few instances where PR open against apex-core and apex-malhar were merged just few hours after it being open and JIRA being raised without giving chance for other contributors to review and comment. I'd suggest that we stop such practice no matter how trivial those changes are. This equally applies to documentation. In a rear cases where PR is urgent (for example one that fixes compilation error), I'd suggest that a committer who plans to merge the PR sends an explicit notification to dev@apex and gives others a reasonable time to respond. Thank you, Vlad -- _______________________________________________________ Munagala V. Ramanath Software Engineer E: r...@datatorrent.com<mailto:r...@datatorrent.com> | M: (408) 331-5034<tel:%28408%29%20331-5034> | Twitter: @UnknownRam www.datatorrent.com<http://www.datatorrent.com> | apex.apache.org<http://apex.apache.org> -- _______________________________________________________ Munagala V. Ramanath Software Engineer E: r...@datatorrent.com<mailto:r...@datatorrent.com> | M: (408) 331-5034<tel:%28408%29%20331-5034> | Twitter: @UnknownRam www.datatorrent.com<http://www.datatorrent.com> | apex.apache.org<http://apex.apache.org> ________________________________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.
