Hi Dan,
Even if enable the "full" Github integration is a step forward, I'm not
sure it will help at the end.
I'm afraid we (at least most of us ;)) won't read pull request comments
on the mailing list because it would be way more verbose.
So, I think there's more value to quickly explain a change, the impacts,
the origin, ...
It doesn't take more than 5 minutes and very convenient for the
contributors.
My $0.01
Regards
JB
On 10/06/2016 02:13 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
I just want to give a little more context to this…. I’ve been lurking on this
list for several months now reading everything that’s going on. From Apache’s
standpoint, that should be a “very good start” for getting to know what is
happening in a project.
On my last PR, Eugene commented about using the AutoValue pattern for part of
it which caught me off guard. None of the other IO’s in master were using it,
there wasn’t any discussion on this list about it, I had no idea what it was
about. So I asked JB to make sure I hadn’t missed anything.
Anyway, this is one of the main concerns I have with Beam’s PR work flow, I
feel I’m missing things as there is significant amount of things not happening
on a list. The initial pull request is going to the commits list (ok, would
prefer the dev list, but at least its on a list). However, none of the
comments or discussions or anything that is occurring as part of the review is
making it to any list. The only people that “learn” from the reviews are the
reviewers and the person who initiated the PR unless they go into each and
every PR and read the comments (and find the news ones and such). With my
Apache hat on, this bothers me. As another example, the comments on PR1003
are very applicable to anyone looking into writing IO’s and they could learn
about some of the “best practices” presented there. Anyway, I don’t really
understand why the full github integration wasn’t setup for the beam PR’s so
that the comments would come back to the lists as well (and JIRA, BTW).
That’s basically the background as to why JB sent this. I was confused and
bugged him. :-)
Dan
On Oct 5, 2016, at 1:51 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi team,
I would like to excuse myself to have forgotten to discuss and share with you a
technical point and generally speaking do a small reminder.
When we work with Eugene on the JdbcIO, we experimented AutoValue to deal with
IO configuration. AutoValue provides a nice way to reduce and limit the
boilerplate code required by the IO configuration.
We used AutoValue in JdbcIO and, regarding the good improvements we saw, we
started to refactor the other IOs.
The use of AutoValue should have been notice and discussed on the mailing list.
"If it doesn't exist on the mailing list, it doesn't exist at all."
So, any comment happening on a GitHub pull request, or discussion on hangouts
which can impact the project (generally speaking) has to happen on the mailing
list.
It provides project transparency and facilitates the new contribution
onboarding.
Thanks !
Regards
JB
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
