Hi folks!

It's all set; you can check out the umbrella JIRA for further information:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759

Additionally, you might want to read the enhanced documentation on how to
contribute using GitHub PRs here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/Contribution+Process#ContributionProcess-GithubWorkflow

Regards,
Sandor

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:10 PM Sandor Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:

> "We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to
> commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. The
> Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not just
> the unit tests that are run on PRs currently."
>
> Got it; thanks for the clarification!
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:22 PM Kevin Risden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759 with some
>> subtasks for concrete action items to take to move forward.
>>
>> "If that happened we might get rid of the
>> 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged
>> into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be
>> merged if all tests were successfully passed already"
>>
>> We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to
>> commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. The
>> Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not
>> just
>> the unit tests that are run on PRs currently.
>> Kevin Risden
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:34 AM Sandor Molnar <[email protected]
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 for PRs.
>> >
>> > My two cents on Kevin's list:
>> > - PR template is a good idea; Ambari also has one here:
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ambari/blob/trunk/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
>> >   It would also be great if test steps are described in a detailed
>> manner
>> > (it helped me many times in case I had to reproduce something months
>> after
>> > the PR was merged)
>> >
>> > - comments on the PR: in case of Ambari they go to the 'Worklog' tab in
>> the
>> > corresponding JIRA, which - IMO - was better than put all of these stuff
>> > within the comments; it gave us a clear separation and did not spam the
>> > comments in the JIRA where other useful information may be found (i.e. a
>> > design history, open point clarification, etc...). Not to mention that
>> the
>> > worklogs contain many information
>> >
>> > - link the PRs to the JIRA automatically is essential IMO; thanks for
>> > pointing that out Kevin!
>> >
>> > - I'm not sure if it is feasible (currently does not seem to be the
>> case)
>> > but it would be great if contributors could invite others for review
>> (i.e.
>> > not only committers)
>> >
>> > - Apache has a Jenkins instance to run CI checks on its projects (Ambari
>> > sample:
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/Ambari-Github-PullRequest-Builder/).
>> > Since Knox already has some jobs here (for instance
>> > https://builds.apache.org/job/Knox-master-daily/) we might consider
>> > creating Knox's PR Builder here too (so that all of our CI related jobs
>> > would be in one place). If that happened we might get rid of the
>> > 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged
>> > into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be
>> > merged if all tests were successfully passed already
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Sandor
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jeffrey Rodriguez <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 It is great that we are considering Pull request that would help to
>> > > increase community collaboration.
>> > > Jeffrey E Rodriguez
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Robert Levas
>> <[email protected]
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1. I think this is a great idea.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM larry mccay <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA.
>> > > > > I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that I am
>> > > > looking
>> > > > > for and then find no meaningful comments.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > +1, let's follow good models from the community, and save
>> ourselves
>> > > > those
>> > > > > > headaches which can be avoided.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM
>> > Kevin Risden
>> > <[email protected]>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI
>> checks
>> > by
>> > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > If we go this route we should make sure we have the following
>> in
>> > > > place:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    - PR Github Template with useful info
>> > > > > > >       -
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository/
>> > > > > > >       - Livy has an example of this
>> > > > > > >    - Ensure that PRs are automatically linked to JIRA
>> > > > > > >       - Not currently done today and a pain since it should
>> > happen
>> > > > > > >       automatically.
>> > > > > > >       - Calcite has this. Might be a simple INFRA ticket
>> > > > > > >    - Documentation for contributors/committers
>> > > > > > >       - Committers - linked github/asf accounts, how to merge
>> a
>> > PR
>> > > > > > >       - Contributors what to expect/updated docs to move from
>> > patch
>> > > > ->
>> > > > > PR
>> > > > > > >    - Ensure that only squash/rebase/merge commits are allowed
>> > > > > > >       - Lot of nuance here and Calcite recently had INFRA
>> disable
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >       buttons for types that didn't fit their model
>> > > > > > >    - Decided what to do with PR comments
>> > > > > > >       - Some projects have PR comments go directly to JIRA
>> > > comments.
>> > > > > > >       - Others have them go to worklog in JIRA.
>> > > > > > >       - Others don't capture PR comments in JIRA
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > So all in all in favor just need to make sure we have the
>> > plumbing
>> > > in
>> > > > > > > place.
>> > > > > > > Kevin Risden
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:13 PM Sandeep Moré <
>> > [email protected]
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I second Phil. Personally, I am more comfortable with the
>> > patches
>> > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > > > because of their simplistic nature but do like PRs as they
>> are
>> > > more
>> > > > > > > > community friendly (helps people review, comment, critique)
>> and
>> > > > looks
>> > > > > > > like
>> > > > > > > > they have become OSS standard as Phil pointed out.
>> > > > > > > > So +1 from me.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > > Sandeep
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 PM Phil Zampino <
>> > [email protected]
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I like the PR model, and it is familiar to many who
>> > contribute
>> > > to
>> > > > > OSS
>> > > > > > > > > projects. I suppose we could continue to support the patch
>> > > > attached
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > Jira model, but we should encourage the PR model, IMHO.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM larry mccay <
>> > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > All -
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > There has been interest from the Knox community in
>> support
>> > of
>> > > > > Pull
>> > > > > > > > > Requests
>> > > > > > > > > > from github.
>> > > > > > > > > > Our move to gitbox recently makes this easier to do.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > What are your thoughts on enabling PRs in general?
>> > > > > > > > > > Should we support both patches in JIRA as well as github
>> > > based
>> > > > > PRs?
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > thanks,
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > --larry
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to