The move to gitbox doesn't require us to only accept github PRs. Given the current rate of contributions via patches on JIRA vs GitHub PRs, I wouldn't want to push for that now.
The change does make it easier for us to start encouraging PR submissions, because committers will be able to directly merge from the GitHub UI. I'd recommend we try to keep this as a small incremental change. That would mean: * committers ensure there's an associated JIRA for release note and precommit checks (that can be just by pinging the contributor to go make one) * backports are still handled by the committer if they're simple and the contributor if there's a problem. I think saying "open a new PR to backport to branch FOO" is perfectly reasonable since it's analogous to when we ask contributors to attach a branch specific patch. * committers ensure the pushed commit has a message that follows our current practice (which would mean looking out for the "helpful" subject wrapping) * Squash merge is an option when the committer goes to accept the PR. the contributor is free to either push additional commits or squash on their branch when working through reviews, I don't think we need to weigh in on how contributors choose which of those works best for them. That way we can also incrementally improve how well we handle PR submissions by better documenting expectations and building up additional tooling (e.g. having our precommit feedback go directly to the PR instead of being tied to a JIRA) On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:09 PM Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:03 AM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi folks! > > > > Per the email from infra "[NOTICE] Mandatory relocation of Apache git > > repositories on git-wip-us.apache.org" ( https://s.apache.org/0sfe ) it > > looks like the future of interacting directly with PRs is coming sooner > > rather than later. > > > > I think we should move to gitbox ASAP rather than wait for the crunch. If > > we hit a rough spot we're more likely to get some help when things aren't > > busy. Maybe we wait until our open RCs close so that folks that need to tag > > those releases don't need to update their workflow first? > > > > Presuming everyone still agrees that we get value out of JIRA, I think we > > need update our committer guidelines to expressly remind folks to check on > > things like commit messages before merging PRs, as well as to ensure folks > > use the "squash and merge" option to keep the git history less complicated. > > Probably a good time to add text about the importance of backporting, since > > there isn't a github UI for doing that. > > > > > Sounds good. > > Use this thread to list what needs documentation? (Agree with the "Need to > sort all of this out and provide clarity now before a switch over." from > Andrew). > > What should the commit be like? Should be like now? What about that ugly > bleed that happens when the first line is too long and gets dumped into the > textbox below ... which then becomes the log IIRC. > > When do we do the squash merge? Is that the committer who does this after > rounds of review? > > I like Andrew's list. > > On the 'You can't fix a branch-1 issue where the code is different in > branch-2 and up by opening a PR against master', this is a prob. at least > with our current 'process'. We don't do a JIRA per push because it is just > a bunch of busy work. Do we have to do this now (any alternatives?) > > Thanks for starting this up Sean, > S
