I misread the day, here, and thought you meant today. I can't do tomorrow afternoon, but that time on Friday works for me. We could also go into next week if that's better.
> On Jul 13, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Matt Post <[email protected]> wrote: > > That works for me. I've watched the video you linked so I have a feel for > this, but I still think it'd be good to chat. > > matt > > >> On Jul 13, 2016, at 8:21 AM, kellen sunderland <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Would everyone be ok with tomorrow at 5PM UTC? >> >> -Kellen >> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Matt Post <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Kellen, >>> >>> No worries, and you did provide a link. I think a Google Hangouts >>> walkthrough would be an efficient way to go about this. What day and time >>> work for you? I am mostly open this week. >>> >>> matt >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2016, at 6:50 PM, kellen sunderland < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sorry should have provided the link to this page: https://travis-ci.org/ >>> . >>>> If you scroll down a bit on that page there's a Pull Request flow >>> section, >>>> it's the flow I'd be most in favour of. There's also a decent (but >>> rushed) >>>> demo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uft5KBimzyk . We actually >>> don't >>>> need to do a lot of the work that he demos, i.e. no node or gulp >>>> configuration. Our setup is close enough to default a default java >>> project >>>> that we just have to tell it to build java 8 and then it runs maven >>>> properly. >>>> >>>> Using a CI server would have some aspects that are similar to the >>> branching >>>> document you mention, and some benefits that are a bit orthogonal. Most >>> of >>>> these benefits have to do with unit testing, which isn't covered in the >>> doc. >>>> >>>> First the orthogonal benefits: The main benefit we would get from using >>> CI >>>> is that we guarantee code in our repo is never broken. That is to say >>>> tests always pass and it always builds correctly. CI servers are really >>>> useful to prevent problems where one developer may have everything >>> working >>>> properly on his/her machine, but when they later realize it's not working >>>> on another devs machine. A good example of this is the >>> class-based-lm-test >>>> we pushed recently. It works fine for me locally but it would fail for >>>> anyone without kenlm.so. There are many other examples (javadoc errors, >>>> code style, etc) but what will happen in these cases is we'll see a big >>>> obvious 'The build has problems' message in the PR page on Github. If >>> the >>>> CI server runs of all of our code quality checks and finds that >>> everything >>>> is good we'll get a big 'This PR is ready to merge' message. >>>> >>>> Now to the part that overlaps a bit with branching. There are various >>>> branching strategies that we could adopt for the project. The master / >>> dev >>>> branch one is a possibility. I'd suggest we try commit code strictly in >>>> PRs rather than pushing to git. This would be the equivalent of feature >>>> branching from your link. The reason I'd suggest that approach is that >>>> from what I've seen it'll be dead simple to get working with Github and >>>> Travis, and it gives us the same goal of having a stable master branch. >>>> >>>> If you'd like we can walk through setting this up together on a forked >>>> version of our Github repo. We could do a quick example of how code >>> would >>>> be pushed and merged. I should be available for a google hangout some >>> time >>>> this week if that works for you? >>>> >>>> -Kellen >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> CI = continuous integration :) >>>>> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >>>>> Chief Architect >>>>> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >>>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >>>>> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >>>>> Email: [email protected] >>>>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) >>>>> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >>>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >>>>> WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/11/16, 4:50 PM, "Matt Post" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This sounds fine to me. What does CI stand for? >>>>>> >>>>>> Another thing we should do, which might be complementary to this, is >>> just >>>>> be more formal about our process. I had been using this method for a >>> while: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Sort of informally, but that could be a good approach (I think someone >>>>> suggested it a while ago). In short: >>>>>> >>>>>> - "master" is always stable and records official releases >>>>>> - development takes place on "develop" >>>>>> - if you need to make an important fix, you branch off master, fix it, >>>>> then merge that into both "master" (as a point release) and "develop" >>>>>> >>>>>> I was using "release" for releases and "master" for develop, but we >>> could >>>>> adopt anything. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kellen, how does this fit with CI? It seems like we could set it up to >>> do >>>>> testing on "master" and "develop" branches --- the first as a sanity >>> check, >>>>> and the second as a test for when we could merge into master? >>>>>> >>>>>> matt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2016, at 8:17 AM, kellen sunderland < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We've made a lot of progress on moving the project over to Apache + >>>>> Maven. >>>>>>> I was wondering if now would be a good time to consider re-thinking >>> how >>>>> we >>>>>>> merge changes into master. The main goal would be to make sure we >>> have >>>>> a >>>>>>> stable master branch that everyone can pull from. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I'd suggest is that we only merge into master once CI has >>> completed >>>>>>> testing. This way we can codify style rules, best practices, and make >>>>> sure >>>>>>> builds succeed and tests pass. We can develop new features create PRs >>>>> as >>>>>>> normal, and then get quick feedback if those PRs are mergable. I'd >>> also >>>>>>> suggest we dis-allow manual pushing to the master branch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure how much effort this would be with the existing CI >>> server, >>>>> but >>>>>>> I could investigate this if someone could grant me admin permissions. >>>>> If >>>>>>> it's a Jenkins server I'm sure it's possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another option is to use Travis CI. I have taken a quick look at >>>>> Travis CI >>>>>>> and it seems like a quite polished solution. It's free to use for >>> open >>>>>>> source projects. It supports automatically building + testing PRs. >>> The >>>>>>> interface is really clean. It has email notifications and group >>>>>>> administration support. It's got support for multiple (programming) >>>>>>> languages so we could in theory build kenlm as a build step and run >>>>> those >>>>>>> tests. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's some more info on what the workflow with Travis-CI and PRs >>> would >>>>> be >>>>>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/pull-requests >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you guys think? Is there a strong preference for using >>> Jenkins >>>>>>> from the Apache community? Would everyone be ok with avoiding direct >>>>>>> pushes to master? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Kellen >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >
