Your proposal looks good Benoit. I'd be happy to see us work towards this.
On 29 March 2013 22:17, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I should have posted it since a while but was side tracked by work and > > travel. Anyway here is a workflow I had in mind since a long time. It's > not > > here to forbid the use of Github PR or system like one. On the contrary > it is > > trying to find a way to work with them while keeping the @dev > mailing-list as > > the first citizen. This is just a proposal. If there are any legal or > > technical constraints that seem to stop it then let me know in response > to > > this thread as well. > > > > Git has been designed from the ground to work with email and many > commands > > inside git are just here for that: git-format-patch(1), git-apply(1), > git-am(1), > > git-send-email(1). It's really easy to send a patch via email and test > it on > > any source code. I would like to use this feature as the core component > of > > our workflow. > > Yes. I love these. It is my preferred workflow. I even have tools that > I snagged from the Cassandra project for sending patche to JIRA from > the command line using these tools. I believe I linked them somewhere > on the wiki, but I can document this better if other people have an > interest. > > > > > Today we are using 2 main tools in the Apache CouchDB project: Jida and > > the mailing lists. We also have a github mirror. I didn't have the time > to > > test the review tool we have, and if someone did I would be happy to > have a > > feedback on its usage. > > > > So what I propose as main workflow is this one: > > > > - The main git repo centralize features & fixes which have a ticket in > Jira, > > also master & release branches. We probably need a develop branch for > C-I > > where fix/features branches should land before going in master or > releases > > branches but that's another topic. > > - Patches should be sent and discussed on the mailing-list. So anyone > susbcribed > > on the mailing-list can comment them and update the thread with new > patches. > > - Once a patch has been reviewed or lazily reviewed (ie. after a time, > noone > > responded), a developer commit it on a branch on the main repo. > > - After a final approval the patch will land in one of the main branches > > (release, master, develop). > > > > This workflow allows us to keep git decentralized and let small groups or > > individials to manage the code outside apache while keeping main > discussions > > for patch integration on the ml. > > +1. Committers have been using branches for this, but it's good to > have a workflow where others can have branches. The email (or) JIRA > workflow, when it's well tooled with git, gives everyone this ability > by making it easy to contribute what they've done in their local > branches. Github is merely a place to post those branches, but if the > patches contained therein can hit us another way, like JIRA or ML, > that's a win. > > > > > What about JIRA: > > ---------------- > > > > - If a patch is answering to an issue in JIRA, it *must* link to it in > using a > > syntax > > - Each response could be eventually appended to the JIRA ticket, but > maybe we > > could just link the mailing list thread? > > Getting COUCHDB-XXXX mentions in the ML linked like trackbacks in JIRA > would be outstanding. If we also had Github pull requests going to the > dev list people could even transitively contribute to JIRA via pull > requests. > > > > > What about GITHUB Pull Requests: > > -------------------------------- > > > > Since we have a mirror on github, I'm kinda agree with Noah that we can't > > really forbid the use of PR. Especially since most want it. > > > > In my understanding and reading the Github API [1], PRs are some kind of > > patches. As a patch they could be hooked to the ML. > > > > The proposed workflow for PR is: > > > > 1. When creating a PR a thread is created on the ML > > 2. Each new patch to the PR is sent to the ML > > 3. Any new comment on the PR is sent to the ML > > 4. Any comment on the ML is sent to the PR. We could find a syntax as > well to > > annotate a line just like github does. > > 5. Any patches sent to this ml thread is also added to the PR. > > Perfect. This is what I've been thinking, too. I suspect everyone > would find this a fantastic situation if we can work it technically. > > > I reckon this workflow imply some work to handle PR notifications or Jira > > integration, but at the end I think it's a win-win solution preserving > our > > neutrality while opening ourself to others. I'm happy to help on that > work. I > > will probably also need the help of @davisp since he knows more about the > > Apache Foundation internals than me. > > I'm also happy to help. If we lay out the individual scripts needed I > can work on some of them. > > > > > Anyway let me know what you think about it. > > > > - benoît > > I think it's great. Thanks for bringing this thread. > -- NS
