Totally agree on all fronts. Would seem like it makes sense for a documentation PR to be opened soon with updates to the https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess page to remove the ambiguity.
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > They are treated with same priority, but as Oleg mentioned, the PRs do > make it easier for collaborative review and has the built in integration > with Travis, although currently some issues to get it consistently working. > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> PR is the standard now across most Apache projects. >> >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Andrew >>> >>> Regarding PR vs. Patch. >>> >>> This has been an ongoing discussion and i’ll let other’s to contribute >>> to this. Basically we support both. That said, personally (and it appears >>> to be embraced by the rest of the community) PR is the preference >>> specifically due to the inline review/comment capabilities provided by >>> GitHub. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Oleg >>> >>> > On May 3, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Thank you Oleg! >>> > >>> > Yeah, that page with the Code Review, has a little refresh link, but it >>> > really just points to this JIRA query: >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837?filter=12331874 >>> > >>> > As a community is there a preference given to JIRA's with Patch or GH >>> PR's >>> > or are they all treated with the same priority? >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Andrew >>> > >>> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky < >>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Andrew >>> >> >>> >> Thank you so much for following up on this. >>> >> I am assuming you have GitHub account. If not please create one as >>> most of >>> >> our contributions deal with pull requests (PR). >>> >> Then you can go to https://github.com/apache/nifi , click on “Pull >>> >> Requests” and review them by commenting in line (you can see plenty of >>> >> examples there of PRs that are already in review process). >>> >> >>> >> I would also suggest to get familiar with Contributor’s guideline for >>> NiFi >>> >> - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide. >>> But >>> >> it appears you have already done so and I think there may be small >>> >> discrepancy in the link you provided or may be it is not as dynamic. >>> >> In any event JIRA and GutHub are good resources to use. >>> >> >>> >> As for the last question, the best case scenario is both (code review >>> and >>> >> test). Having said that we do realize that your time and the time of >>> every >>> >> contributor may be limited, so I say whatever you can. Some time >>> quick code >>> >> scan can uncover the obvious that doesn’t need testing. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks again >>> >> Cheers >>> >> Oleg >>> >> >>> >> On May 3, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[email protected] >>> > >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Oleg, >>> >> I would love to help -- couple of quick questions: >>> >> >>> >> The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute guide >>> (Code >>> >> review process -- >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess >>> >> ) shows a JIRA list with patches available. >>> >> >>> >> Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just >>> looking for >>> >> code review or same process of apply local merge and test? >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Andrew >>> >> >>> >> On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Guys >>> >> >>> >> I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi >>> >> >>> >> community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to admit >>> that >>> >> >>> >> now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the >>> Apache NiFi >>> >> and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community that >>> we >>> >> have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety of >>> >> business domains. >>> >> >>> >> This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if not >>> all >>> >> >>> >> of you share this sentiment. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> That said and FWIW we need help! >>> >> While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and >>> patches, >>> >> >>> >> we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact >>> that most >>> >> of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi >>> feature >>> >> base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain as >>> they >>> >> are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this >>> same >>> >> community and that is where we need help. While “merge" >>> responsibilities >>> >> are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of every >>> member >>> >> of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to >>> >> redirect some of your efforts to this process. >>> >> >>> >> We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular development >>> cycle >>> >> >>> >> is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses 0.7.0 >>> and >>> >> 1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking changes >>> if >>> >> any etc.) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Cheers >>> >> Oleg >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Andrew >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Thanks, >>> > Andrew >>> > >>> > Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis> >>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306> >>> > twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata> >>> >>> >> > -- Thanks, Andrew Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306> twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
