Only runs against master but there is always work to be done :) On 1/22/13 11:34 AM, "Michael Brooks" <mich...@michaelbrooks.ca> wrote:
>> >> Here's a draft for a new "Committing Your Own Changes:" section on >> http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CommitterWorkflow > > >Great draft Andrew. It reads well. > >Outsider observation/note: probably useful for step 4 to tie into the CI - >> getting the pull request to notify Fil's CI project. > > >It would be nice to run a smoke test against the CI server. I'm unsure >whether medic currently supports branches or only runs against master. > >On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Andrew Lunny <alu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Outsider observation/note: probably useful for step 4 to tie into the >>CI - >> getting the pull request to notify Fil's CI project. >> >> On 22 January 2013 10:53, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> > Here's a draft for a new "Committing Your Own Changes:" section on >> > http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CommitterWorkflow >> > >> > Step 1: Mail the Mailing-list >> > - This is required if: >> > - Your change will add/remove/change any public Cordova APIs. >> > - You suspect that your change has a chance of being controversial >> > - You would like feedback before you begin. >> > >> > When possible, try to phrase things in the form of a proposal. If no >>one >> > objects (within a workday or two), then consider yourself to have Lazy >> > Consensus >><http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus >> >. >> > >> > Step 2: Ensure there is a JIRA issue. >> > - JIRA issues are used for both new features and for bugs. >> > - The "Fix For" field is used for the purpose of Release Notes. >> > - The issues are also used to track which commits / topic branches >>are >> > related to them. >> > >> > Step 3: Create a topic branch >> > - Using a public topic branch is necessary only when either: >> > 1. you would like to collaborate on the feature >> > 2. you would like feedback on your code before committing >> > - For small bugfixes, public topic branches are not required. >> > - Note: You should never rebase a public topic branch! >> > >> > Step 4: Ask for a code review >> > - If you are using a public topic branch, then you should ask for a >> code >> > review when you consider it to be complete. >> > - For now, use a github pull request. Soon, use reviews.apache.org. >> > - Email the ML so that anyone who is available can have a look at >>your >> > code. If you have someone in particular that you would like approval >> from, >> > be sure to add them in the To: of your email. >> > - Again, sometimes this will end with a Lazy >> > >>Consensus<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus> >> > . >> > >> > Step 5: Merge your change >> > - Once your topic branch is tested & working, it's time to merge it. >> Use >> > the following workflow: >> > >> > git checkout master >> > git pull apache master >> > git checkout topic_branch >> > git checkout -b to_be_merged >> > git rebase master -i >> > ... >> > git checkout master >> > git merge --ff-only to_be_merged >> > git push apache master >> > git branch -d to_be_merged >> > git branch -D topic_branch >> > git push apache :topic_branch >> > >> > The rebase -i step is your chance to clean up the commit messages and >>to >> > combine small commits when appropriate. For example: >> > Commit A: Implemented RockOn feature (CB-1234) >> > Commit B: Added tests for RockOn (CB-1234) >> > Commit C: Fixed RockOn not working with empty strings >> > Commit D: Renamed RockOn to JustRock >> > Commit E: Refactor MainFeature to make use of JustRock. >> > >> > In this case, it would be appropriate to combine commits A-D into a >> single >> > commit, or at least commits A & C. Having a smaller number of commits >> when >> > merging makes it easier for others to comprehend the diff commits, and >> also >> > makes it easier to roll-back commits should the need arise. For JS >> commits, >> > prefix the message with [platform] so that it's clear who should take >> > interest in the commit. For all commits, be sure to include the JIRA >> issue >> > number / URL. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Braden Shepherdson >><bra...@chromium.org >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > Code reviews will generally sound good to Googlers, so long as we >>can >> > keep >> > > the turnaround down. It definitely keeps our code quality high on >> > internal >> > > projects, even if it is sometimes a pain to have to wait for a >>response >> > and >> > > do your own reviews. I've asked Michal and Andrew for >>over-the-shoulder >> > iOS >> > > reviews in the past, since I'm new to that platform. >> > > >> > > I also want to apologize for the trouble with the ArrayBuffers on >> > Android. >> > > I was running into the bug with navigating in mobile-spec causing >> > > deviceready not to fire, and had just changed my start page to the >> binary >> > > echo test Michal wrote. It started working, so I cleaned up my >> debugging >> > > and pushed. That was premature, since I broke some of the tests and >> > hadn't >> > > run the automatic tests. Gomen nasai. >> > > >> > > >> > > Braden >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Andrew Grieve >><agri...@chromium.org >> > > >wrote: >> > > >> > > > ReviewBoard seems like a great fit to me! Let's try it out! >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Brian M Dube <bd...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > On 01/21/2013 01:24 PM, Joe Bowser wrote: >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Grieve < >> > agri...@chromium.org >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> As for code reviews: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> I'd certainly be interested in more code-reviews. I think >>it's >> > > really >> > > > > >> useful to get feedback on changes. The only time when it >> becomes a >> > > > > burden >> > > > > >> is when turn-around time gets too long (e.g. you submit for >> review >> > > and >> > > > > no >> > > > > >> one looks at it for over a day). >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Up until now, we've been using the github pull-request >>interface >> > to >> > > > have >> > > > > >> others review our changes, but this isn't done very >>frequently. >> I >> > > also >> > > > > >> don't love this approach because comments through it don't >>get >> > > posted >> > > > > back >> > > > > >> to the cordova mailing-list. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not super thrilled by this either, because our GitHub pull >> > > request >> > > > > > system is completely broken since we can't actually close >> requests >> > > and >> > > > > > indicate when we think things are a good idea or not. I think >>we >> > > > > > should do what Android does with Gerrit (see >> > > > > > https://android-review.googlesource.com) , but that'll involve >> > > > > > additional infrastructure and another war with INFRA about >> whether >> > > > > > it's the Apache way or whatever. >> > > > > >> > > > > An instance of ReviewBoard [1] exists at Apache [2], so I don't >> think >> > > it >> > > > > means war about the Apache way. Is that something that could >>fill >> > this >> > > > > need? >> > > > > >> > > > > Brian >> > > > > >> > > > > [1] https://reviews.apache.org/ >> > > > > [2] >> > > > > >> > > >> https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/reviewboard_instance_running_at_the >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
