Re: the github PR trigger thing

It looks like those hooks are available:
https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/github_pull_request_builds_now

Here's an example of it being used by the kafka project:

https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/3546

Once those status checks are being returned, then the status gates can be
turned on under branch protection.

__Jason

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Dave Neuman <[email protected]> wrote:

> I personally don't think that we should require a Jira for every single
> PR.  I think blanket statements like "you must create a Jira ticket for
> each PR", while made with good intentions, are too hard to enforce, don't
> take every situation into account, and are sometimes a deterrent to new
> contributors.  If Joe somebody from the internet wants to submit a PR, we
> should welcome it and not say "we are not accepting this without first
> creating a Jira account and then creating a Jira ticket".
>
> The changelog thing is a real problem.  We had a plan to have an
> auto-generated changelog, but that was reliant on us moving to full github
> which we haven't done yet.  I think maybe the changelog conversation might
> need to be re-visited.
>
> Have you taken a look at our contributing guide[1] on github?  It already
> outlines a lot of the things you are proposing here and I think its the
> best place to have our PR requirements.
>
> I like Jason's idea, though not sure if it is possible.
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/blob/
> master/CONTRIBUTING.md
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Jason Tucker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Do you know if the the apache jenkins instance supports PR-triggered
> > builds? If so, then repo branches can be protected so that PRs can only
> be
> > merged if the build status is successful. Might be a good safeguard to
> have
> > in place, if we have the ability to enable it on the jenkins side.
> >
> > __Jason
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Gelinas, Derek <
> > [email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As the project grows in complexity and the speed of updates, we're
> > finding
> > > a real need for changelogs and a reduction in the number of commits.
> At
> > > this time, creating a changelog over even a short period of time is a
> > > tedious and time consuming activity, and it is making even incremental
> > > updates difficult for us here at Comcast.
> > >
> > > I would like to propose the following:
> > >
> > >
> > >   *   Each PR must have a linked jira issue.  This is as simple as
> > > creating the ticket and then adding [TC-XXX] to the beginning of the PR
> > > title.  The jira ticket title should briefly describe the fix or new
> > > feature in a manner which lends itself to inclusion in a changelog.
> > >   *   Large changes should have as much information as possible about
> the
> > > nature of the change and how this change affects the system.
> > >   *   Testing should be done on all changes before the PR is submitted!
> > > Please do not submit anything that has not been fully tested,
> regardless
> > of
> > > how simple or obvious it may seem.  You are the first line of defense
> > > against bugs!  If the work is not yet complete, be sure to add [WIP] to
> > the
> > > title of the PR.
> > >   *   Commits should be squashed as much as possible before the PR is
> > > submitted.  27 commits for minor changes make review and later analysis
> > > very difficult.  Commit messages should be descriptive so it is clear
> > what
> > > was changed.
> > >   *   New features or changes to functionality should include
> > > documentation changes whenever possible.
> > >   *   Integration testing should be included whenever possible - we now
> > > have automated integration testing, so this is another valuable method
> to
> > > isolate bugs before they hit the field.
> > >   *   When in doubt, be clear about what you are doing!
> > >
> > > I would also like to propose that if these requirements are not met
> > > without specific reasoning, PRs should be rejected until they are
> > corrected.
> > >
> > > Derek
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to