I should clarify that I'm not at all proposing GH, but inline comments to be retained (perhaps in modified form) alongside the code itself.
It's already arbitrary what makes it into JIRA, and what is just assumed to be correct, or what is discussed on IRC, or offline. But even worse is that this discussion almost never makes its way to somewhere future authors are aware of it. On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > TL;DE I’m with Sylvain, Sam and Aleksey. > > Having code related comments ”nearer“ to the code would be really nice, > but OTOH having ”everything“ in once place, namely JIRA, is much more > important for me. > > I mean - where’s the border about what belongs to GH comments and what > must be in JIRA? Is it just nits (in GH)? Is it notes about concrete > algorithms? I don’t know. > > Something that’s really tightly integrated into JIRA so that code-related > comments show up in both places (and ideally also in IDEA) might change my > opinion. > (Off-topic, but related: would really appreciate something that links a > git commit with the related ticket (basically some bot that posts the link > to that commit on github).) > > Robert > > > > Am 09.07.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@datastax.com>: > > > > I’m with Sylvain and Sam on this, as a person drinking from the JIRA > firehose. > > > > I’m fine with review happening on GH so long as it’s also mirrored on > JIRA. > > > > Someone could write a script that would automate this (take a PR, > convert it to a JIRA-formatted comment). > > > > — > > AY > > > > On July 9, 2015 at 15:54:48, Benedict Elliott Smith ( > belliottsm...@datastax.com) wrote: > > > > While that approach optimises for people paying close attention to the > JIRA > > firehose, it is less optimal for people trying to figure out after the > fact > > what is going on wrt certain tickets. Some of the more complex tickets I > > cannot make head or tails of even when I was one of the main > participants. > > > > It also doesn't promote translating these discussions into code comments > > for the permanent record. From my POV, though, I guess I can stick to my > > current approach and just cut/paste the results into JIRA if we want > every > > nuance replicated there. > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Sam Tunnicliffe <s...@beobal.com> wrote: > > > >> I'm +1 with Sylvain here; keeping the discussions open, accessible to > all > >> and persistent seems more valuable than reducing the friction for > >> contributors & reviewers. > >> > >> Personally, my workflow involves following the JIRA firehose, so I tend > to > >> be aware (at least to some degree) of both "major" & "minor" comments, a > >> lot of which I would surely miss were they to move GH. I also agree with > >> the point that what seems minor to one viewer may raise red flags with > >> another. > >> > >> That said, I often have offline conversations (from both the > >> reviewer/contributor perspective) around minor-ish things like naming, > nits > >> and so forth. At the moment these are a) not recorded & b) marginally > more > >> difficult to do asynchronously. So I think in future I may personally > start > >> using a GH branch for such remarks, though I don't think that should > become > >> a mandated part of The Process. > >> > >> Sam > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>>> One downside to that approach is that the extra barrier to entry makes > >> it > >>>> more of a 1-on-1 conversation rather than an open discussion via JIRA > >>>> comments. > >>> > >>> Yes, and I really worry about that. And I (see the "I", that's a > totally > >>> personal opinion) value keeping discussions as open as possible much > more > >>> than > >>> additional convenience for making and processing review comments. I'll > >>> admit > >>> however that the current use of JIRA comments for reviews has never > >> burden > >>> me > >>> all that much so I don't see all that much convenience to be gained by > >>> changing > >>> that process (but then again, I'm happy using vim for my development, > so > >>> your > >>> mileage probably varies). > >>> > >>> Typically, if we talk of work-flow, I personally read JIRA updates > fairly > >>> religiously, which allows me to keep vaguely up to date on what's going > >> on > >>> with > >>> reviews even for tickets I'm a priori not involved with. I consider it > a > >>> good, > >>> healthy thing. If we move some of the review material outside of JIRA, > I > >>> strongly suspect this won't be the case anymore due to the burden of > >> having > >>> to > >>> check multiple places. > >>> > >>> Anyway, I worry a bit that changing for what I perceive as relatively > >> minor > >>> convenience will make us lose more than we get. Just my 2 cents however > >>> really. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sylvain > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Michael Shuler < > mich...@pbandjelly.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> When we set up autojobs for the dev branches, I did some digging > around > >>>> the jenkins / githubPR integration, similar to what spark is doing. > I'd > >>> be > >>>> completely on board with working through that setup, if it helps this > >>>> workflow. > >>>> > >>>> Michael > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 07/08/2015 03:02 PM, Carl Yeksigian wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Spark has been using the GitHub PRs successfully; they have an > >>> additional > >>>>> mailing list which contains updates from GitHub ( > >>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spark-reviews/), and they > >> also > >>>>> have their PRs linked to JIRA so that going from the ticket to the PR > >> is > >>>>> easily done. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we are going to start using GitHub PRs to conduct reviews, we > >> should > >>>>> follow similar contribution guidelines to what Spark has ( > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Contributing+to+Spark#ContributingtoSpark-PullRequest > >>>>> < > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Contributing+to+Spark > >>>>>> ), > >>>>> and have Infra set up the same hooks for our repo. We can also hook > up > >>>>> cassci to do the same jobs as the AmplabJenkins performs currently. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> As some of you might have noticed, Tyler and I tossed around a couple > >>> of > >>>>>> thoughts yesterday regarding the best way to perform larger reviews > >> on > >>>>>> JIRA. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've been leaning towards the approach Benedict's been taking lately > >>>>>> w/putting comments inline on a branch for the initial author to > >> inspect > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> that provides immediate locality for a reviewer to write down their > >>>>>> thoughts and the same for the initial developer to ingest them. One > >>>>>> downside to that approach is that the extra barrier to entry makes > it > >>>>>> more > >>>>>> of a 1-on-1 conversation rather than an open discussion via JIRA > >>>>>> comments. > >>>>>> Also, if one deletes branches from github we then lose our > discussion > >>>>>> history on the review process which is a big problem for digging > into > >>> why > >>>>>> certain decisions were made or revised during the process. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On the competing side, monster comments like this > >>>>>> < > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?focusedCommentId=14617221&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14617221 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (which > >>>>>> is one of multiple to come) are burdensome to create and map into a > >>> JIRA > >>>>>> comment and, in my experience, also a burden to map back into the > >>>>>> code-base > >>>>>> as a developer. Details are lost in translation; I'm comfortable > >>> labeling > >>>>>> this a sub-optimal method of communication. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So what to do? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Joshua McKenzie > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > — > Robert Stupp > @snazy > >
