Thanks for raising the correctness aspect, José. We currently have a
compromise solution since PRs are not required to be up-to-date with trunk
before merging. Basically, as long as a PR does not have conflicts and has
passing tests, it can be merged. That's the situation today. We rely on the
trunk builds to retroactively inform us about problems.

The merge queue is probably the solution to your concern. This would allow
us to guarantee that each PR has run the tests with the latest code on
trunk one at a time. We still can't turn this feature on, but I'm hopeful
it will be available to us soon.

For this PR, I have kept the "Compile and Check Java" step building the
merge ref (trunk + PR). This will retain some of the previous behavior and
at least help prevent breaking trunk due to compilation errors.

In order to benefit from the build cache, contributors will need to pull in
trunk often. I'm hoping this is a good incentive to keep the branch updated.

> I never found that the limiting factor in merging a PR to Apache Kafka is
the build times.

I have :)

It really depends on the nature of the change. Right now, the community is
driving a lot of small cleanup/removal PRs for 4.0 which are easy to review
but take time to test and build (and re-build).

-David A

On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 4:30 PM José Armando García Sancio
<jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:

> Thanks David.
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 11:55 AM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have a simple patch which changes our PRs to build the HEAD of the PR
> > rather than the merge ref.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/18449
>
> We shouldn't sacrifice correctness for performance. The tests need to
> run against what has been committed to the trunk branch. Otherwise the
> onus is on the contributor and committer to make sure that the PR
> branch is up to date enough.
>
> I never found that the limiting factor in merging a PR to Apache Kafka
> is the build times. The limiting factor is committer review time.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> -José
>


-- 
David Arthur

Reply via email to