I fully agree with Fabian.
Multiple-choice questions provide little value to the reviewer, since
the
validity has to be verified in any case. While text answers have to be
validated as well,
they give some hint to the reviewer as to how it can be verified and
which steps the
contributor did to do so.
I also agree that it is too long; IMO this is really intimidating to new
contributors to be greeted with this.
Ideally we only link to the contributors guide and ask 3 questions:
* What is the problem?
* How was it fixed?
* How can the fix be verified?
On 18.07.2017 10:47, Fabian Hueske wrote:
I like the sections about purpose, change log, and verification of the
changes.
However, I think the proposed template is too much text. This is
probably
the reason why the first attempt to establish a PR template failed.
I would move most of the introduction and explanations incl. examples
to
the "Contribution Guidelines" and only pass a link.
IMO, the template should be rather shorter than the current one and
only
have the link, the sections to fill out, and checkboxes.
I'm also not sure how much the detailed questions will help.
For example even if the question about changed dependencies is answered
with "no", the reviewer still has to check that.
I think the questions of the current template work differently.
A question "Does the PR include tests?" suggests to the contributor
that
those should be included. Same for documentation.
Cheers,
Fabian
2017-07-18 10:05 GMT+02:00 Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org>:
+1, I like this a lot.
With the previous template, it doesn’t really resonate with what we
should
care about, and therefore most of the time I think contributors just
delete
that template and write down something on their own.
I would also like to add: “Savepoint / checkpoint binary formats” to
the
potential affect scope check list.
I think changes to those deserves an independent yes / no check of its
own.
Cheers,
Gordon
On 18 July 2017 at 3:49:42 PM, Ufuk Celebi (u...@apache.org) wrote:
I really like this and vote to change our current template.
The simple yes/no/... options are a really good idea. I would add to
your email that the questions will equally help reviewers to remember
to look at these things, which is just as important.
When we merge this, we should make sure to strictly follow the guide.
Ideally, in the long term we can even automate some of the yes/no/...
questions via a bot... but let's not get ahead of ourselves here ;-)
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
wrote:
Hi all!
I have reflected a bit on the pull requests and on some of the recent
changes to Flink and some of the introduced bugs / regressions that
we
have
fixed.
One thing that I think would have helped is to have more explicit
information about what the pull request does and how the contributor
would
suggest to verify it. I have seen this when contributing to some
other
project and really liked the approach.
It requires that a contributor takes a minute to reflect on what was
touched, and what would be ways to verify that the changes work
properly.
Besides being a help to the reviewer, it also makes contributors
aware
of
what is important during the review process.
I suggest a new pull request template, as attached below, with a
preview
here:
https://github.com/StephanEwen/incubator-flink/
blob/pr_template/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
Don't be scared, it looks long, but a big part is the introductory
text
(only relevant for new contributors) and the examples contents for
the
description.
Filling this out for code that is in shape should be a quick thing:
Remove
the into and checklist, write a few sentences on what the PR does
(one
should do that anyways) and then pick some yes/no in the
classification
section.
Curious to hear what you think!
Best,
Stephan
============================
Full suggested pull request template:
*Thank you very much for contributing to Apache Flink - we are happy
that
you want to help us improve Flink. To help the community review you
contribution in the best possible way, please go through the
checklist
below, which will get the contribution into a shape in which it can
be
best
reviewed.*
*Please understand that we do not do this to make contributions to
Flink
a
hassle. In order to uphold a high standard of quality for code
contributions, while at the same time managing a large number of
contributions, we need contributors to prepare the contributions
well,
and
give reviewers enough contextual information for the review. Please
also
understand that contributions that do not follow this guide will take
longer to review and thus typically be picked up with lower priority
by
the
community.*
## Contribution Checklist
- Make sure that the pull request corresponds to a [JIRA issue](
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/FLINK/issues). Exceptions
are
made
for typos in JavaDoc or documentation files, which need no JIRA
issue.
- Name the pull request in the form "[FLINK-1234] [component] Title
of
the pull request", where *FLINK-1234* should be replaced by the
actual
issue number. Skip *component* if you are unsure about which is the
best
component.
Typo fixes that have no associated JIRA issue should be named
following
this pattern: `[hotfix] [docs] Fix typo in event time introduction`
or
`[hotfix] [javadocs] Expand JavaDoc for PuncuatedWatermarkGenerator`.
- Fill out the template below to describe the changes contributed by
the
pull request. That will give reviewers the context they need to do
the
review.
- Make sure that the change passes the automated tests, i.e., `mvn
clean
verify`
- Each pull request should address only one issue, not mix up code
from
multiple issues.
- Each commit in the pull request has a meaningful commit message
(including the JIRA id)
- Once all items of the checklist are addressed, remove the above
text
and this checklist, leaving only the filled out template below.
**(The sections below can be removed for hotfixes of typos)**
## What is the purpose of the change
*(For example: This pull request makes task deployment go through the
blob
server, rather than through RPC. That way we avoid re-transferring
them
on
each deployment (during recovery).)*
## Brief change log
*(for example:)*
- *The TaskInfo is stored in the blob store on job creation time as a
persistent artifact*
- *Deployments RPC transmits only the blob storage reference*
- *TaskManagers retrieve the TaskInfo from the blob cache*
## Verifying this change
*(Please pick either of the following options)*
This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test
coverage.
*(or)*
This change is already covered by existing tests, such as *(please
describe
tests)*.
*(or)*
This change added tests and can be verified as follows:
*(example:)*
- *Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large
payloads
(100MB)*
- *Extended integration test for recovery after master (JobManager)
failure*
- *Added test that validates that TaskInfo is transferred only once
across recoveries*
- *Manually verified the change by running a 4 node cluser with 2
JobManagers and 4 TaskManagers, a stateful streaming program, and
killing
one JobManager and to TaskManagers during the execution, verifying
that
recovery happens correctly.*
## Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following
parts:
- Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): **(yes / no)**
- The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with
`@Public(Evolving)`: **(yes / no)**
- The serializers: **(yes / no / don't know)**
- The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): **(yes
/ no
/ don't know)**
- Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its
components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: **(yes / no /
don't
know)**:
## Documentation
- Does this pull request introduce a new feature? **(yes / no)**
- If yes, how is the feature documented? **(not applicable / docs /
JavaDocs / not documented)**
