Totally makes sense. My only comment was just in regards to the fact that on that Wiki page there is no mention of looking at GH PR's. I agree that in this day and age looking to GH, may be first inclination for many. However, perhaps calling that out in the contribution guide would eliminate ambiguity. For example this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837, has a patch, but not a GH PR.
Totally cool looking at both, just seems that it can be easy for someone new to the project to miss something. On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > The "Patch Available" state in JIRA can mean a patch is attached to the > JIRA, or a PR is submitted. > > It is really just a manual state transition on the ticket after > In-Progress... the next state is patch available which tells people there > is something to review. > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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> >> > > -- 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>
