We created a useful patch review tool for Drill - that was again inspired
by Kafka.
The tool creates a diff > uploads to JIRA > and creates a review board
request. All in one.

I can modify the tool to suit our project and see if its useful for us too.

Here is a view of the tool:
https://github.com/apache/drill/blob/master/tools/drill-patch-review.py

Let me know your thoughts,

Thanks


On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Rajat Khandelwal <[email protected]>
wrote:

> rbt's diff is the diff generated by
>
> $ git diff --full-index master..HEAD
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:39 AM amareshwarisr . <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think the patch generated with rbt should be same as git diff. I'm not
> > sure if rbt provides a command to generate patch. Downloading from review
> > board can be one option for reviewed patches. but if you simply want to
> > generate patch, i think git diff should suffice.
> >
> > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jaideep Dhok <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The 'rbt' tool which we use to post review requests on review board
> > > produces diffs that can be applied cleanly with git-apply. I was
> > suggesting
> > > this to be used while generating patches.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jaideep
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:22 AM, amareshwarisr . <
> [email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jaideep,
> > > >
> > > > could not understand whats the standardization you are mentioning?
> Can
> > > you
> > > > give more deails?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Jaideep Dhok <
> [email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can we standardise on using rbt for generating diffs? The same diff
> > > that
> > > > is
> > > > > created by rbt to create a review, can also be used with git-apply
> > > > cleanly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Jaideep
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Rajat Khandelwal <
> > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for removing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:28 PM Yash Sharma <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for removing --no-prefix.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, amareshwarisr . <
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As documented at
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lens.incubator.apache.org/developer/contribute.html#Generating_patch
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > we said we will use git diff --no-prefix for generating patch
> > and
> > > > use
> > > > > > git
> > > > > > > > apply -p0 for applying. Starting this discussion if we want
> to
> > > > remove
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > going forward.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are two reasons why i think we should remove it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >    1. They are not the default way to generate patch on git.
> > > > > > > >    2. Review board is not accepting patches generated with
> > > > > --no-prefix
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >    be uploaded.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only reason we had no-prefix was to not include a/ b/ in
> > the
> > > > > paths
> > > > > > > > sothat it looks clean.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If people are fine with removing --no-prefix, I can create a
> > > follow
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > jira
> > > > > > > > for updating contributor doc.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Amareshwari
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -
> > > > > Jaideep Dhok
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > _____________________________________________________________
> > > > > The information contained in this communication is intended solely
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
> > > > > authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally
> > > > privileged
> > > > > information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby
> > > > notified
> > > > > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in
> > > > reliance
> > > > > on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
> be
> > > > > unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
> > > notify
> > > > > us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from
> > your
> > > > > system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete
> > > > transmission
> > > > > of the information contained in this communication nor for any
> delay
> > in
> > > > its
> > > > > receipt.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -
> > > Jaideep Dhok
> > >
> > > --
> > > _____________________________________________________________
> > > The information contained in this communication is intended solely for
> > the
> > > use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
> > > authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally
> > privileged
> > > information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby
> > notified
> > > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in
> > reliance
> > > on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
> > > unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify
> > > us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your
> > > system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete
> > transmission
> > > of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in
> > its
> > > receipt.
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to