Works for me, thanks.
On 12/21/16, 11:21 AM, "Casey Stella" <[email protected]> wrote:
Sure, how about making it generic to "a deployed cluster"?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Matt Foley <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 on Casey’s first edit. However, wrt the second, can we please not
> require vagrant? Any of our single-node test deployments, including
> vagrant, ansible, mpack, or (soon :-) docker, should be acceptable.
>
> Thanks,
> --Matt (who can’t run vagrant workably on the systems available to me)
>
>
> On 12/21/16, 8:52 AM, "Michael Miklavcic" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Agreed on Casey's addition to 2.5. What do you think about saying the
> pla
> should be stated on the PR, since that will be replicated to Jira
> automatically?
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Oh, one more, I propose the following addition to 2.5:
> > >
> > > JIRAs will have a description of how to exercise the functionality
> in a
> > > step-by-step manner on a Quickdev vagrant instance to aid review
> and
> > > validation.
> >
> >
> > When Mike, Otto and I moved the system to the current version of
> Storm, we
> > needed a broader smoke test than just running data through that
> exercised a
> > variety of the features. We pulled those smoke tests from the
various
> > discussions in the JIRAs.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We have been having a lively discussion on METRON-590 (see
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/395) around
> creating
> > > multiple abstractions to do the same (or very nearly the same)
> thing.
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose an addition to section 2.3 which reads:
> > >
> > >> Contributions which provide abstractions which are either very
> similar
> > to
> > >> or a subset of existing abstractions should use and extend
> existing
> > >> abstractions rather than provide competing abstractions unless
> > engineering
> > >> exigencies (e.g. performance ) make such an operation impossible
> without
> > >> compromising core functionality of the platform.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to suggest the following anecdote from the early years of
> the
> > > codebase to justify the above:
> > >
> > > Stellar started as a predicate language only for threat triage
> rules. As
> > > such, when the task of creating Field Transformations came to me,
I
> > needed
> > > something like Stellar except I needed it to return arbitrary
> objects,
> > > rather than just booleans. In my infinite wisdom, I chose to fork
> the
> > > language, create a second, more specific DSL for field
> transformations,
> > > thereby creating "Metron Query Language" and "Metron
Transformation
> > > Language."
> > >
> > > I felt a nagging feeling at the time that I should just expand the
> query
> > > language, but I convinced myself that it would require too much
> testing
> > and
> > > it would be a change that was too broad in scope. It took 3 months
> for me
> > > to get around to unifying those languages and if we had more
> people using
> > > it, it would have been an absolute nightmare.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yeah, I +1 the notion of thorough automated tests.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Matt Foley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hard to mark diffs in text-only mode :-) My proposed change is:
> > >>>
> > >>> >> All merged patches will be reviewed with the expectation that
> > >>> thorough automated tests shall be provided and are consistent
> with …
> > >>>
> > >>> ^^^^^^^^
> > >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >>> Added word “thorough” and changed “exist” to “shall be
provided”.
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> --Matt
> > >>>
> > >>> On 12/20/16, 1:22 PM, "James Sirota" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Matt, thats already in there. See last bullet point of
2.6
> > >>>
> > >>> 20.12.2016, 14:14, "Matt Foley" <[email protected]>:
> > >>> > If we aren't going to require 100% test coverage for new
> code,
> > >>> then we should at least say "thorough" automated tests, in the
> last
> > bullet
> > >>> of 2.6. And it should be a mandate not an assumption:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > All merged patches will be reviewed with the expectation
> that
> > >>> thorough automated tests shall be provided and are consistent
> with
> > project
> > >>> testing methodology and practices, and cover the appropriate
> cases (
> > see
> > >>> reviewers guide )
> > >>> >
> > >>> > IMO,
> > >>> > --Matt
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On 12/20/16, 12:51 PM, "James Sirota" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Good feedback. Here is the next iteration that
> accounts for
> > >>> your suggestions:
> > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> action?p
> > >>> ageId=61332235
> > >>> >
> > >>> > 1. How To Contribute
> > >>> > We are always very happy to have contributions,
> whether for
> > >>> trivial cleanups, little additions or big new features.
> > >>> > If you don't know Java or Scala you can still
> contribute to
> > >>> the project. We strongly value documentation and gladly accept
> > improvements
> > >>> to the documentation.
> > >>> > 1.1 Contributing A Code Change
> > >>> > To submit a change for inclusion, please do the
> following:
> > >>> > If there is not already a JIRA associated with your
> pull
> > >>> request, create it, assign it to yourself, and start progress
> > >>> > If there is a JIRA already created for your change
then
> > assign
> > >>> it to yourself and start progress
> > >>> > If you don't have access to JIRA or can't assign an
> issue to
> > >>> yourself, please message [email protected] and
> someone
> > >>> will either give you permission or assign a JIRA to you
> > >>> > If you are introducing a completely new feature or API
> it is
> > a
> > >>> good idea to start a discussion and get consensus on the basic
> design
> > >>> first. Larger changes should be discussed on the dev boards
> before
> > >>> submission.
> > >>> > New features and significant bug fixes should be
> documented
> > in
> > >>> the JIRA and appropriate architecture diagrams should be
> attached.
> > Major
> > >>> features may require a vote.
> > >>> > Note that if the change is related to user-facing
> protocols /
> > >>> interface / configs, etc, you need to make the corresponding
> change on
> > the
> > >>> documentation as well.
> > >>> > Craft a pull request following the guidelines in
> Section 2 of
> > >>> this document
> > >>> > Pull requests should be small to facilitate easier
> review.
> > >>> Studies have shown that review quality falls off as patch size
> grows.
> > >>> Sometimes this will result in many small PRs to land a single
> large
> > feature.
> > >>> > People will review and comment on your pull request.
> It is
> > our
> > >>> job to follow up on pull requests in a timely fashion.
> > >>> > Once the pull request is merged the person doing the
> merge
> > >>> (committer) should manually close the corresponding JIRA.
> > >>> > 1.2 Reviewing and merging patches
> > >>> > Everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests.
> We only
> > >>> ask that you try and think carefully, ask questions and are
> excellent
> > to
> > >>> one another. Code review is our opportunity to share knowledge,
> design
> > >>> ideas and make friends.
> > >>> > When reviewing a patch try to keep each of these
> concepts in
> > >>> mind:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Is the proposed change being made in the correct
> place? Is it
> > >>> a fix in a backend when it should be in the primitives? In Kafka
> vs
> > Storm?
> > >>> > What is the change being proposed? Is it based on
> Community
> > >>> recognized issues?
> > >>> > Do we want this feature or is the bug they’re fixing
> really a
> > >>> bug?
> > >>> > Does the change do what the author claims?
> > >>> > Are there sufficient tests?
> > >>> > Has it been documented?
> > >>> > Will this change introduce new bugs?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > 2. Implementation
> > >>> >
> > >>> > 2.1 Grammar and style
> > >>> > These are small things that are not caught by the
> automated
> > >>> style checkers.
> > >>> > Does a variable need a better name?
> > >>> > Should this be a keyword argument?
> > >>> > In a PR, maintain the existing style of the file.
> > >>> > Don’t combine code changes with lots of edits of
> whitespace
> > or
> > >>> comments; it makes code review too difficult. It’s okay to fix
an
> > >>> occasional comment or indenting, but if wholesale comment or
> whitespace
> > >>> changes are needed, make them a separate PR.
> > >>> > Use the checkstyle plugin in Maven to verify that your
> PR
> > >>> conforms to our style
> > >>> > 2.2 Code Style
> > >>> > Follow the Sun Code Conventions outlined here:
> > >>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconvtoc-136057.html
> > >>> > except that indents are 2 spaces instead of 4
> > >>> > 2.3 Coding Standards
> > >>> > Implementation matches what the documentation says
> > >>> > Logger name is effectively the result of
> Class.getName()
> > >>> > Class & member access - as restricted as it can be
> (subject
> > to
> > >>> testing requirements)
> > >>> > Appropriate NullPointerException and
> IllegalArgumentException
> > >>> argument checks
> > >>> > Asserts - verify they should always be true
> > >>> > Look for accidental propagation of exceptions
> > >>> > Look for unanticipated runtime exceptions
> > >>> > Try-finally used as necessary to restore consistent
> state
> > >>> > Logging levels conform to Log4j levels
> > >>> > Possible deadlocks - look for inconsistent locking
> order
> > >>> > Race conditions - look for missing or inadequate
> > >>> synchronization
> > >>> > Consistent synchronization - always locking the same
> > object(s)
> > >>> > Look for synchronization or documentation saying
> there's no
> > >>> synchronization
> > >>> > Look for possible performance problems
> > >>> > Look at boundary conditions for problems
> > >>> > Configuration entries are retrieved/set via
> setter/getter
> > >>> methods
> > >>> > Implementation details do NOT leak into interfaces
> > >>> > Variables and arguments should be interfaces where
> possible
> > >>> > If equals is overridden then hashCode is overridden
> (and vice
> > >>> versa)
> > >>> > Objects are checked (instanceof) for appropriate type
> before
> > >>> casting (use generics if possible)
> > >>> > Public API changes have been publicly discussed
> > >>> > Use of static member variables should be used with
> caution
> > >>> especially in Map/reduce tasks due to the JVM reuse feature
> > >>> > 2.4 Documentation
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Code-Level Documentation
> > >>> > Self-documenting code (variable, method, class) has a
> clear
> > >>> semantic name
> > >>> > Accurate, sufficient for developers to code against
> > >>> > Follows standard Javadoc conventions
> > >>> > Loggers and logging levels covered if they do not
> follow our
> > >>> conventions (see below)
> > >>> > System properties, configuration options, and
resources
> > covered
> > >>> > Illegal arguments are properly documented as
> appropriate
> > >>> > Package and overview Javadoc are updated as
appropriate
> > >>> > Javadoc comments are mandatory for all public APIs
> > >>> > Generate Javadocs for release builds
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Feature-level documentation - should be version
> controlled in
> > >>> github in README files.
> > >>> > Accurate description of the feature
> > >>> > Sample configuration and deployment options
> > >>> > Sample usage scenarios
> > >>> >
> > >>> > High-Level Design documentation - architecture
> description
> > and
> > >>> diagrams should be a part of a wiki entry.
> > >>> > Provide diagrams/charts where appropriate. Visuals are
> always
> > >>> welcome
> > >>> > Provide purpose of the feature/module and why it
exists
> > within
> > >>> the project
> > >>> > Describe system flows through the feature/module where
> > >>> appropriate
> > >>> > Describe how the feature/module interfaces with the
> rest of
> > >>> the system
> > >>> > Describe appropriate usages scenarios and use cases
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Tutorials - system-level tutorials and use cases
> should also
> > >>> be kept as wiki entries.
> > >>> > Add to the Metron reference application documentation
> for
> > each
> > >>> additional major feature
> > >>> > If appropriate, publish a tutorials blog on the Wiki
to
> > >>> highlight usage scenarios and apply them to the real world use
> cases
> > >>> > 2.5 Tests
> > >>> > Unit tests exist for bug fixes and new features, or a
> > >>> rationale is given in JIRA for why there is no test
> > >>> > Unit tests do not write any temporary files to /tmp
> > (instead,
> > >>> the tests should write to the location specified by the
> test.build.data
> > >>> system property)
> > >>> >
> > >>> > 2.6 Merge requirements
> > >>> > Because Metron is so complex, and the implications of
> getting
> > >>> it wrong so devastating, Metron has a strict merge policy for
> > committers:
> > >>> > Patches must never be pushed directly to master, all
> changes
> > >>> (even the most trivial typo fixes!) must be submitted as a pull
> > request.
> > >>> > A committer may merge their own pull request, but only
> after
> > a
> > >>> second reviewer has given it a +1. A qualified reviewer is a
> Metron
> > >>> committer or PPMC member.
> > >>> > A non-committer may ask the reviewer to merge their
> pull
> > >>> request or alternatively post to the Metron dev board to get
> another
> > >>> committer to merge the PR if the reviewer is not available.
> > >>> > There should be at least one independent party besides
> the
> > >>> committer that have reviewed the patch before merge.
> > >>> > A patch that breaks tests, or introduces regressions
by
> > >>> changing or removing existing tests should not be merged. Tests
> must
> > always
> > >>> be passing on master. This implies that the tests have been run.
> > >>> > All pull request submitters must link to travis-ci
> > >>> > If somehow the tests get into a failing state on
> master (such
> > >>> as by a backwards incompatible release of a dependency) no pull
> > requests
> > >>> may be merged until this is rectified.
> > >>> > All merged patches will be reviewed with the
> expectation that
> > >>> automated tests exist and are consistent with project testing
> > methodology
> > >>> and practices, and cover the appropriate cases ( see reviewers
> guide )
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The purpose of these policies is to minimize the
> chances we
> > >>> merge a change that has unintended consequences.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > 3. JIRA
> > >>> > The Incompatible change flag on the issue's JIRA is
set
> > >>> appropriately for this patch
> > >>> > For incompatible changes, major features/improvements,
> and
> > >>> other release notable issues, the Release Note field has a
> sufficient
> > >>> comment
> > >>> >
> > >>> > 20.12.2016, 13:18, "Otto Fowler" <
> [email protected]>:
> > >>> > > "The purpose of these policies is to minimize the
> chances
> > we
> > >>> merge a change
> > >>> > > that jeopardizes has unintended consequences."
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > remove jeopardizes?
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On December 20, 2016 at 13:25:35, James Sirota (
> > >>> [email protected]) wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I incorporated the changes. This is what the doc
> looks like
> > >>> now:
> > >>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > action?pa
> > >>> geId=61332235
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > As an open source project, Metron welcomes
> contributions of
> > >>> all forms. The
> > >>> > > sections below will help you get started.
> > >>> > > 1. How To Contribute
> > >>> > > We are always very happy to have contributions,
> whether for
> > >>> trivial
> > >>> > > cleanups, little additions or big new features.
> > >>> > > If you don't know Java or Scala you can still
> contribute to
> > >>> the project. We
> > >>> > > strongly value documentation and gladly accept
> improvements
> > >>> to the
> > >>> > > documentation.
> > >>> > > 1.1 Contributing A Code Change
> > >>> > > To submit a change for inclusion, please do the
> following:
> > >>> > > If there is not already a JIRA associated with your
> pull
> > >>> request, create
> > >>> > > it, assign it to yourself, and start progress
> > >>> > > If there is a JIRA already created for your change
> then
> > >>> assign it to
> > >>> > > yourself and start progress
> > >>> > > If you don't have access to JIRA or can't assign an
> issue
> > to
> > >>> yourself,
> > >>> > > please message [email protected] and
> someone
> > >>> will give you
> > >>> > > permission
> > >>> > > If you are introducing a completely new feature or
> API it
> > is
> > >>> a good idea to
> > >>> > > start a discussion and get consensus on the basic
> design
> > >>> first. Larger
> > >>> > > changes should be discussed on the dev boards before
> > >>> submission.
> > >>> > > New features and significant bug fixes should be
> documented
> > >>> in the JIRA and
> > >>> > > appropriate architecture diagrams should be
> attached. Major
> > >>> features may
> > >>> > > require a vote.
> > >>> > > Note that if the change is related to user-facing
> protocols
> > >>> / interface /
> > >>> > > configs, etc, you need to make the corresponding
> change on
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > documentation as well.
> > >>> > > Craft a pull request following the guidelines in
> Section 2
> > >>> of this document
> > >>> > > Pull requests should be small to facilitate easier
> review.
> > >>> Studies have
> > >>> > > shown that review quality falls off as patch size
> grows.
> > >>> Sometimes this
> > >>> > > will result in many small PRs to land a single large
> > feature.
> > >>> > > People will review and comment on your pull request.
> It is
> > >>> our job to
> > >>> > > follow up on pull requests in a timely fashion.
> > >>> > > Once the pull request is merged, manually close the
> > >>> corresponding JIRA
> > >>> > > 1.2 Reviewing and merging patches
> > >>> > > Everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests.
> We
> > only
> > >>> ask that you
> > >>> > > try and think carefully, ask questions and are
> excellent to
> > >>> one another.
> > >>> > > Code review is our opportunity to share knowledge,
> design
> > >>> ideas and make
> > >>> > > friends.
> > >>> > > When reviewing a patch try to keep each of these
> concepts
> > in
> > >>> mind:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Is the proposed change being made in the correct
> place? Is
> > >>> it a fix in a
> > >>> > > backend when it should be in the primitives? In
> Kafka vs
> > >>> Storm?
> > >>> > > What is the change being proposed? Is it based on
> Community
> > >>> recognized
> > >>> > > issues?
> > >>> > > Do we want this feature or is the bug they’re fixing
> really
> > >>> a bug?
> > >>> > > Does the change do what the author claims?
> > >>> > > Are there sufficient tests?
> > >>> > > Has it been documented?
> > >>> > > Will this change introduce new bugs?
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 2. Implementation
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 2.1 Grammar and style
> > >>> > > These are small things that are not caught by the
> automated
> > >>> style checkers.
> > >>> > > Does a variable need a better name?
> > >>> > > Should this be a keyword argument?
> > >>> > > In a PR, maintain the existing style of the file.
> > >>> > > Don’t combine code changes with lots of edits of
> whitespace
> > >>> or comments; it
> > >>> > > makes code review too difficult. It’s okay to fix an
> > >>> occasional comment or
> > >>> > > indenting, but if wholesale comment or whitespace
> changes
> > >>> are needed, make
> > >>> > > them a separate PR.
> > >>> > > Use the checkstyle plugin in Maven to verify that
> your PR
> > >>> conforms to our
> > >>> > > style
> > >>> > > 2.2 Code Style
> > >>> > > Follow the Sun Code Conventions outlined here:
> > >>> > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconvtoc-
> > 136057.ht
> > >>> ml
> > >>> > > except that indents are 2 spaces instead of 4
> > >>> > > 2.3 Coding Standards
> > >>> > > Implementation matches what the documentation says
> > >>> > > Logger name is effectively the result of
> Class.getName()
> > >>> > > Class & member access - as restricted as it can be
> (subject
> > >>> to testing
> > >>> > > requirements)
> > >>> > > Appropriate NullPointerException and
> > >>> IllegalArgumentException argument
> > >>> > > checks
> > >>> > > Asserts - verify they should always be true
> > >>> > > Look for accidental propagation of exceptions
> > >>> > > Look for unanticipated runtime exceptions
> > >>> > > Try-finally used as necessary to restore consistent
> state
> > >>> > > Logging levels conform to Log4j levels
> > >>> > > Possible deadlocks - look for inconsistent locking
> order
> > >>> > > Race conditions - look for missing or inadequate
> > >>> synchronization
> > >>> > > Consistent synchronization - always locking the same
> > >>> object(s)
> > >>> > > Look for synchronization or documentation saying
> there's no
> > >>> synchronization
> > >>> > > Look for possible performance problems
> > >>> > > Look at boundary conditions for problems
> > >>> > > Configuration entries are retrieved/set via
> setter/getter
> > >>> methods
> > >>> > > Implementation details do NOT leak into interfaces
> > >>> > > Variables and arguments should be interfaces where
> possible
> > >>> > > If equals is overridden then hashCode is overridden
> (and
> > >>> vice versa)
> > >>> > > Objects are checked (instanceof) for appropriate
type
> > before
> > >>> casting (use
> > >>> > > generics if possible)
> > >>> > > Public API changes have been publicly discussed
> > >>> > > Use of static member variables should be used with
> caution
> > >>> especially in
> > >>> > > Map/reduce tasks due to the JVM reuse feature
> > >>> > > 2.4 Documentation
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Code-Level Documentation
> > >>> > > Self-documenting code (variable, method, class) has
> a clear
> > >>> semantic name
> > >>> > > Accurate, sufficient for developers to code against
> > >>> > > Follows standard Javadoc conventions
> > >>> > > Loggers and logging levels covered if they do not
> follow
> > our
> > >>> conventions
> > >>> > > (see below)
> > >>> > > System properties, configuration options, and
> resources
> > >>> covered
> > >>> > > Illegal arguments are properly documented as
> appropriate
> > >>> > > Package and overview Javadoc are updated as
> appropriate
> > >>> > > Javadoc comments are mandatory for all public APIs
> > >>> > > Generate Javadocs for release builds
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Feature-level documentation - should be version
> controlled
> > >>> in github in
> > >>> > > README files.
> > >>> > > Accurate description of the feature
> > >>> > > Sample configuration and deployment options
> > >>> > > Sample usage scenarios
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > High-Level Design documentation - architecture
> description
> > >>> and diagrams
> > >>> > > should be a part of a wiki entry.
> > >>> > > Provide diagrams/charts where appropriate. Visuals
> are
> > >>> always welcome
> > >>> > > Provide purpose of the feature/module and why it
> exists
> > >>> within the project
> > >>> > > Describe system flows through the feature/module
> where
> > >>> appropriate
> > >>> > > Describe how the feature/module interfaces with the
> rest of
> > >>> the system
> > >>> > > Describe appropriate usages scenarios and use cases
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Tutorials - system-level tutorials and use cases
> should
> > also
> > >>> be kept as
> > >>> > > wiki entries.
> > >>> > > Add to the Metron reference application
> documentation for
> > >>> each additional
> > >>> > > major feature
> > >>> > > If appropriate, publish a tutorials blog on the Wiki
> to
> > >>> highlight usage
> > >>> > > scenarios and apply them to the real world use cases
> > >>> > > 2.5 Tests
> > >>> > > Unit tests exist for bug fixes and new features, or
a
> > >>> rationale is given in
> > >>> > > JIRA for why there is no test
> > >>> > > Unit tests do not write any temporary files to /tmp
> > >>> (instead, the tests
> > >>> > > should write to the location specified by the
> > >>> test.build.data system
> > >>> > > property)
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 2.6 Merge requirements
> > >>> > > Because Metron is so complex, and the implications
of
> > >>> getting it wrong so
> > >>> > > devastating, Metron has a strict merge policy for
> > committers:
> > >>> > > Patches must never be pushed directly to master, all
> > changes
> > >>> (even the most
> > >>> > > trivial typo fixes!) must be submitted as a pull
> request.
> > >>> > > A committer may merge their own pull request, but
> only
> > after
> > >>> a second
> > >>> > > reviewer has given it a +1. A qualified reviewer is
a
> > Metron
> > >>> committer or
> > >>> > > PPMC member.
> > >>> > > A non-committer may ask the reviewer to merge their
> pull
> > >>> request or
> > >>> > > alternatively post to the Metron dev board to get
> another
> > >>> committer to
> > >>> > > merge the PR if the reviewer is not available.
> > >>> > > There should be at least one independent party
> besides the
> > >>> committer that
> > >>> > > have reviewed the patch before merge.
> > >>> > > A patch that breaks tests, or introduces regressions
> by
> > >>> changing or
> > >>> > > removing existing tests should not be merged. Tests
> must
> > >>> always be passing
> > >>> > > on master. This implies that the tests have been
run.
> > >>> > > All pull request submitters must link to travis-ci
> > >>> > > If somehow the tests get into a failing state on
> master
> > >>> (such as by a
> > >>> > > backwards incompatible release of a dependency) no
> pull
> > >>> requests may be
> > >>> > > merged until this is rectified.
> > >>> > > All merged patches will be reviewed with the
> expectation
> > >>> that automated
> > >>> > > tests exist and are consistent with project testing
> > >>> methodology and
> > >>> > > practices, and cover the appropriate cases ( see
> reviewers
> > >>> guide )
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > The purpose of these policies is to minimize the
> chances we
> > >>> merge a change
> > >>> > > that jeopardizes has unintended consequences.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 3. JIRA
> > >>> > > The Incompatible change flag on the issue's JIRA is
> set
> > >>> appropriately for
> > >>> > > this patch
> > >>> > > For incompatible changes, major
> features/improvements, and
> > >>> other release
> > >>> > > notable issues, the Release Note field has a
> sufficient
> > >>> comment
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 20.12.2016, 09:42, "[email protected]" <
> [email protected]>:
> > >>> > >> I don't have enough experience on the Java/Javadoc
> side to
> > >>> make a
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > specific
> > >>> > >> suggestion, but with other languages I've used
> Sphinx and
> > >>> Doxygen with
> > >>> > >> great results.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Jon
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:29 AM Michael Miklavcic
<
> > >>> > >> [email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>> Were you thinking javadoc or something more? I
> wouldn't
> > >>> mind seeing us
> > >>> > >>> produce a javadoc site, if we aren't already doing
> so.
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> On Dec 20, 2016 9:25 AM, "[email protected]" <
> > >>> [email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> > Regarding documentation - while I'm not a huge
> fan of
> > >>> that approach
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > (I
> > >>> > >>> > would prefer to see documentation generated from
> the
> > >>> code), I think
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > it
> > >>> > >>> > could work in the short term. Having that
> outlined both
> > >>> in the coding
> > >>> > >>> > guidelines and on the wiki would be important.
> > >>> > >>> >
> > >>> > >>> > I agree with the comments about author !=
> committer,
> > and
> > >>> 100% code
> > >>> > >>> > coverage.
> > >>> > >>> >
> > >>> > >>> > Jon
> > >>> > >>> >
> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:10 AM James Sirota <
> > >>> [email protected]>
> > >>> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > >>> >
> > >>> > >>> > > In my view the lower-level documentation that
> should
> > >>> be source
> > >>> > >>> controlled
> > >>> > >>> > > with the code belongs on github and then use
> case
> > >>> documentation and
> > >>> > >>> > > top-level architecture diagrams belong on the
> wiki.
> > >>> What do you
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > think?
> > >>> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >>> > > I think if the author is not a committer and
> can't
> > >>> merge then the
> > >>> > >>> > reviewer
> > >>> > >>> > > should probably merge or the PR originator
> should
> > ping
> > >>> the dev
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > board to
> > >>> > >>> > get
> > >>> > >>> > > someone to merge the PR in. Does that seem
> reasonable
> > >>> to everyone?
> > >>> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >>> > > 18.12.2016, 13:10, "Kyle Richardson" <
> > >>> [email protected]>:
> > >>> > >>> > > > Couple of questions/comments:
> > >>> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >>> > > > In 2.4, we talk about Javadoc and code
> comments but
> > >>> not too much
> > >>> > >>> about
> > >>> > >>> > > the
> > >>> > >>> > > > user documentation. Should we, possibly in a
> > section
> > >>> 4, give some
> > >>> > >>> > > > recommendations on what should go into the
> README
> > >>> files versus on
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > the
> > >>> > >>> > > wiki?
> > >>> > >>> > > > This could also help the reviewer know if
the
> > change
> > >>> is
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > documented
> > >>> > >>> > > > sufficiently.
> > >>> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >>> > > > In 2.6, we say that 1 qualified reviewer
> (Apache
> > >>> committer or
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > PPMC
> > >>> > >>> > > member)
> > >>> > >>> > > > other than the author of the PR must have
> given it
> > a
> > >>> +1. In the
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > case
> > >>> > >>> > > where
> > >>> > >>> > > > the author is not a committer (who could
> merge
> > their
> > >>> own PR),
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > should
> > >>> > >>> we
> > >>> > >>> > > > state that the reviewer will be responsible
> for the
> > >>> merge?
> > >>> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >>> > > > -Kyle
> > >>> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >>> > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:39 PM, James
> Sirota <
> > >>> [email protected]>
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >>> > > wrote:
> > >>> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> Lets move this back to the discuss thread
> since
> > >>> it's still
> > >>> > >>> generating
> > >>> > >>> > > that
> > >>> > >>> > > >> many comments. Please post all your
> feedback and I
> > >>> will
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > incorporate
> > >>> > >>> > it
> > >>> > >>> > > and
> > >>> > >>> > > >> put it back to a vote.
> > >>> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > >>> > > >> Thanks,
> > >>> > >>> > > >> James
> > >>> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > >>> > > >> 16.12.2016, 16:12, "Matt Foley" <
> [email protected]
> > >:
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > +1
> > >>> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > In 2.2 (follow Sun guidelines), do you
> want to
> > >>> add the
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > notation
> > >>> > >>> > > “except
> > >>> > >>> > > >> that indents are 2 spaces instead of 4”, as
> Hadoop
> > >>> does? Or does
> > >>> > >>> the
> > >>> > >>> > > Metron
> > >>> > >>> > > >> community like 4-space indents? I see both
> in the
> > >>> Metron code.
> > >>> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > My +1 holds in either case.
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > --Matt
> > >>> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > On 12/16/16, 9:34 AM, "James Sirota" <
> > >>> [email protected]>
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > wrote:
> > >>> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > I incorporated the changes to the coding
> > >>> guidelines from our
> > >>> > >>> > discuss
> > >>> > >>> > > >> thread. I'd like to get them voted on to
> make them
> > >>> official.
> > >>> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > >>> uence/pages/viewpage.
> > >>> > >>> > > >> action?pageId=61332235
> > >>> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > Please vote +1, -1, 0
> > >>> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > The vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > >>> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > -------------------
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > Thank you,
> > >>> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > James Sirota
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > >>> > >>> > > >> > jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >>> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > >>> > > >> -------------------
> > >>> > >>> > > >> Thank you,
> > >>> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > >>> > > >> James Sirota
> > >>> > >>> > > >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > >>> > >>> > > >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >>> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >>> > > -------------------
> > >>> > >>> > > Thank you,
> > >>> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >>> > > James Sirota
> > >>> > >>> > > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > >>> > >>> > > jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >>> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >>> > --
> > >>> > >>> >
> > >>> > >>> > Jon
> > >>> > >>> >
> > >>> > >>> > Sent from my mobile device
> > >>> > >>> >
> > >>> > >> --
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Jon
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Sent from my mobile device
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > -------------------
> > >>> > > Thank you,
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > James Sirota
> > >>> > > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > >>> > > jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >>> >
> > >>> > -------------------
> > >>> > Thank you,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > James Sirota
> > >>> > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > >>> > jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >>>
> > >>> -------------------
> > >>> Thank you,
> > >>>
> > >>> James Sirota
> > >>> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > >>> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
