+1 @Stephan: thanks! :-)
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all! > > Since the feedback was positive, I added the guidelines to the wiki, with a > disclaimer that this is being refined. > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Apache+Flink+development+guidelines > > Stephan > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Let's encourage the use of component tags, I don't see the need for > > enforcing it. For commits that affect one component, I expect people will > > use it. > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > +1 for the guide and JIRA references. > > > > > > I'd keep the component tags optional though. > > > As Max said, there is less space to display a meaning message if a > commit > > > addresses several components. Separating changes into commits by > > components > > > sounds not very practical to me. > > > Also without a clear definition of when to add which component tag, we > > > cannot rely on them anyway. > > > > > > Git should also have better tools than browsing commit messages when > > > looking for a commit that changed specific code. > > > > > > 2015-01-07 15:24 GMT+01:00 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > I personally like the tags very much. I think the streaming component > > was > > > > the first to introduce it and it stuck me as a very good idea. > > > > > > > > +1 to stick with them > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Márton Balassi < > > balassi.mar...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I prefer component declarations, the current best practice comes in > > > handy > > > > > when searching through commits. Answering a "when did key selection > > > > change > > > > > for streaming?" type question I just had to answer would have been > a > > > bit > > > > > more difficult without it - manageable though. > > > > > > > > > > In case of streaming it does not yield much to omit the component > > > > > declaration, most of the time then we would need to add it to the > > > commit > > > > > message itself, e.g. : > > > > > "[streaming] Join API rework", could be e.g. rewritten as "Join API > > > > rework > > > > > for streaming". I do prefer the former one, because it is not only > > more > > > > > straight-forward to understand, but a bit shorter as well. > > > > > Of course there are counter-examples, like "[streaming] DataStream > > > > > refactor" -> "DataStream refactor". > > > > > > > > > > I can accept optional, but would like to keep it strongly > recommended > > > for > > > > > streaming. I also find the [docs] tag helpful. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Should we put that to an official vote, or wait for people to > > comment > > > > and > > > > > > (if nobody objects) consider it as agreed on through lazy > > consensus? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Márton Balassi < > > > > balassi.mar...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
