+1 for the guide, thanks for clarifying the issue On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Yes, we should have a guide like that somewhere. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > We have not exactly defined this so far, but it is a good point to do > so. > > > > > > I personally find it good to have changes associated with an issue, > > because > > > it allows you to trace back why the change was done. > > > To make sure we do not overdo this and impose totally unnecessary > > overhead, > > > I would suggest the following: > > > > > > *No issue is required for* > > > > > > - Small fixes like typos, simple warnings, adding/improving a comment > > > > > > - Adding and improving existing pages of the documentation > > > > > > - Simple improvements of style / elegance / efficiency (simple > > rewriting > > > a loop / condition / method interaction) if no behavior is changed > > > > > > ==> Basically anything that does not change or add functionality > > > > > > > > > *An issue is required for* > > > > > > Everything else, in particular: > > > > > > - Anything that changes functionality or behavior relevant to users > > > > > > - Anything that changes functionality or behavior relevant to other > > > components > > > > > > - Anything that adds a feature > > > > > > > > > I would vote to allow coarse issues and have multiple commits that > > > reference it > > > > > > [FLINK-1234] [runtime] Runtime support some cool new thing > > > [FLINK-1234] [java api] Add hook for cool thing to java api > > > [FLINK-1234] [scala api] Add hook for that thing to scala api > > > [FLINK-1234] [optimizer] Make optimizer aware that it can exploit this > > > thing > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > The guide lines for pull-requests for committers are as follows: > > > > > > *A pull request with comments/additional signoff is required for > anything > > > that* > > > > > > - breaks the public APIs > > > > > > - adds methods to the public APIs (that will need to be kept stable > > from > > > them on) > > > > > > - alters user-facing behavior (e.g., mutability of types, null value > > > handling, window semantics, ...) > > > > > > - adds user-facing knobs (switches, config parameters, execution > option > > > on the execution environment) > > > > > > - adds additional maven dependencies > > > > > > - changes the way components interact > > > > > > - touches highly sensitive and performance critical parts, such > memory > > > management or network stack > > > > > > ==> Changes that come with a pull request should have one or more > issues > > > associated with them. > > > > > > > > > Anyone that wants to have comments or some additional pairs of eyes in > > the > > > code should make a pull request as well. > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > *Naming scheme for commits* > > > > > > [issue] [component] Message > > > > > > For fixes without an issue, the issue can be dropped. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? Should we put this into the Wiki? > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I feel we never really talked about this. So, should we open Jira > > issues > > > > even for very small fixes and then add the ticket number to the > commit? > > > Or > > > > should we just commit those small fixes. Right now, I have two small > > > fixes > > > > (one is 4 lines, the other one is two lines) for the ValueTypeInfo > and > > > > TextValueInputFormat. Very obscure stuff, I know. :D > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Aljoscha > > > > > > > > > >
