Excuse me guys! I've written on Macbook Pro. No idea why GMail messed it up. I was only able to see the strange characters when I pasted on a gist text area. The previous message is below, but if anyone is still having trouble (I tried to remove the weird character), I left a copy at: https://gist.github.com/eribeiro/da2a6a6c9a508610d52d0755fae8352d
"Hi, The patch attached on ZOOKEEPER-2597 is a straightforward adaptation of Kafka's one. It takes care of merging Github PR into Apache git repo and a subsequent closing of the PR on the GH side, among other things (rewriting of commit messages, etc). The current status is: the script needs to be reviewed/validated by a committer. It has been some time since I uploaded the patch, so I gonna do another pass through it in the meantime. There are some workflow issues beyond the scope of ZOOKEEPER-2597 that need to be sorted out (IMO): 1. The normal workflow is to open a JIRA ticket before doing any GH PR, that is, no JIRA-less PRs. The PR should have a title of the form "ZOOKEEPER-xxxx: Title". This will trigger the Apache JIRA-Github integration and it's opening show up in the JIRA ticket. 2. OTOH, not every Kafka PR needs a corresponding JIRA ticket. There are a class of PRs with "MINOR" title that represent trivial code changes and "HOT-FIX" title that fix urgent, but simple bugs. Both bypass the JIRA creation step, even tough they are still subject to review. It's worth adopting a similar approach for ZK project? 3. IIRC (didn't find any page to confirm), Cassandra project encourages, but not demands, that contributors also upload a patch file to JIRA even in the case of a GH PR (as to leave a audit trail, I guess). Or, at least, C* project leaves up to the contributors to either open a GH PR or upload the patch file to JIRA. +1 about having a 'paper trail' of review comments on JIRA and/or mailing list (I would prefer the mailing list tbh). But as Michael and Flavio pointed out, I never seen GH PR review **comments** being written back to JIRA, at least not in Kafka, Cassandra or Solr projects, that I have followed more closely. Eddie" On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Eddie's mail contains lots of '=E2=80=8B'' which is unicode character > zero-width space, which might cause parsing trouble for some mail clients. > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Dude, I'm just not able to parse your e-mail, did you write that on a > > phone or something? > > > > -Flavio > > > > > On 05 Oct 2016, at 03:54, Edward Ribeiro <edward.ribe...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > The patch attached on ZOOKEEPER-2597 is a > > > straightforward adaptation of > > > Kafka's one. It takes care of merging Github PR into Apache git repo > and > > > a > > > subsequent closing of the PR on the GH side > > > among other things (rewriting of commit messages, etc) > > > . The current status is: the script needs to be reviewed/validated by a > > > committer. > > > It has been some time since I uploaded the patch, so I gonna do > another > > > pass through it in the meantime. > > > > > > > > > T > > > here are some workflow issues beyond the scope of ZOOKEEPER-2597 > > > that need to be sorted out (IMO) > > > : > > > > > > 1. The normal workflow is to open a JIRA ticket before doing any GH PR > > > , that is, no JIRA-less PRs. > > > The PR should have a title of the form "ZOOKEEPER-xxxx: Title". This > will > > > trigger the Apache JIRA-Github integration and it's opening show up in > > the > > > JIRA ticket. > > > > > > 2. > > > OTOH, n > > > ot every Kafka PR needs a corresponding JIRA ticket > > > . > > > There are a class of PR > > > s > > > with "MINOR" > > > title > > > that represent trivial code changes > > > and "HOT-FIX" title that fix urgent, but simple bugs. Both > > > bypass the JIRA creation step > > > , even tough they are still > > > subject to review > > > . > > > It's worth adopting a similar approach for ZK project? > > > > > > 3. IIRC > > > (didn't find any page to confirm) > > > , Cassandra project encourages, but not demands, that contributors also > > > upload a patch file to JIRA even in the case of a GH PR > > > (as to leave a audit trail, I guess) > > > . > > > Or > > > , > > > at > > > > > > least > > > , > > > C* project > > > leave > > > s > > > up to the contributor > > > s > > > to either open a GH PR or upload the patch file > > > to JIRA. In fact, Github allows the access to a raw patch or diff, > it's > > > just a matter of adding the ".patch" or ".diff" suffix to the end of > the > > > Pull Request URL. > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 about having a 'paper trail' > > > of review comments > > > > > > o > > > n JIRA and > > > /or > > > mailing list (I > > > would > > > prefer the mailing list tbh). But as Michael and Flavio pointed out, I > > > never seen > > > GH > > > PR review > > > ** > > > comments > > > ** > > > being written back to JIRA, at least not in Kafka, Cassandra > > > or > > > Solr projects > > > , that I have followed more closely. > > > > > > Eddie > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>> as long as the opening/closing/commenting all get sent to the > mailing > > >> list or recorded in jira > > >> Yeah, this is my impression as well, that we need to keep certain > paper > > >> trail regarding activities and comments on ASF side (JIRA or mail > list). > > >> Infra page said: > > >> > > >> - Any Pull Request that gets opened, closed, reopened or > **commented** > > >> on now gets recorded on the project's mailing list > > >> - If a project has a JIRA instance, any PRs or *comments* on PRs > that > > >> include a JIRA ticket ID will trigger an update on that specific > > ticket > > >> > > >> I checked a couple Kafka and Spark JIRAs but I don't see any of the > > >> comments made in github PR were posted on JIRA, except the activities > > (open > > >> a PR, close a PR). Since both projects have been using github for a > > while I > > >> assume such practice of NOT integrating comments between github and > ASF > > >> JIRA is acceptable? Though I feel it would be really useful if > comments > > >> could converge in a single place as well, that will provide a clear > > history > > >> for a given technical issue. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Until ZOOKEEPER-2597 <https://issues.apache.org/ > > >> jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2597> > > >>> is fixed, we can't merge via github. > > >>> > > >>> For code reviews, we can use GH as long as the > > opening/closing/commenting > > >>> all get sent to the mailing list or recorded in jira. I don't think > we > > >> have > > >>> that yet, but it is possible according to this: > > >>> > > >>> https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_ > > >>> integration_between_apache_and <https://blogs.apache.org/ > > >>> infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and> > > >>> > > >>> For now, we do need to upload patches and converge using jira. > > >>> > > >>> I think Eddie has been looking at this process trying to replicate > the > > >>> Kafka setup, so perhaps he can give an update if I'm right. Kafka > > doesn't > > >>> send every comment to the mailing list, though, but I'm not sure if > > >> that's > > >>> acceptable according to the ASF, I need to double-check. > > >>> > > >>> -Flavio > > >>> > > >>>> On 04 Oct 2016, at 19:42, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> Now we've moved to git, what is the policy for uploading patches and > > >>> doing > > >>>> code reviews? I am asking because I've seen recently there are git > > pull > > >>>> requests coming in without associated patch file uploaded to JIRA. > > I've > > >>>> checked > > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ > HowToContribute > > , > > >>>> looks like there is not much change regarding patch process - so > > >>> presumably > > >>>> we still need to generate and upload patch file to JIRA for the > > record, > > >>>> while using github (maybe in addition of review board, or in the > > future > > >>>> with gerrit) to do code reviews? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Edward Ribeiro < > > >>> edward.ribe...@gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Cool, just open https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2597 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> PS: I removed the REPO_HOME global variable. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Better to have that in the form of a pull request or diff. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> REPO_HOME does seem to be unused. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -Flavio > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 20 Sep 2016, at 18:57, Edward Ribeiro < > edward.ribe...@gmail.com > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hey, I have started porting the kafka-merge.py to work on ZK > repos. > > >> I > > >>>>>> would > > >>>>>>> need someone to review it and help me test it now. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The files were uploaded below, but I will create a github repo > yet > > >>>>> today. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/od8bet2574jttm3/ > > >>>>>> AADv1DXTb8vfyVCmelFbYCEha?dl=0 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I uploaded the kafka version script so that you can use diff or > > Meld > > >>> to > > >>>>>>> spot my changes, but feel free to grasp the original file here: > > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/kafka-merge-pr.py > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> PS: It's just me or REPO_HOME env variable is not used anywhere > in > > >> the > > >>>>>>> merge script??? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>> Eddie > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Benjamin Reed < > br...@apache.org> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> what you are suggesting sounds good, but i don't know how to do > > >> it? > > >>>>>> since > > >>>>>>>>> in the end we are still just accepting diffs on patches, the > only > > >>>>> thing > > >>>>>>>>> that changes is that we use svn rather than git right? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Notice the workflow Kafka uses - which includes "git apply" and > > >>>>>> specifying > > >>>>>>>> the author tag when committers commit (so that the OP gets > proper > > >>>>>>>> attribution in the commit itself) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > >>>>>> Manual+Commit+Workflow > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Patrick > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> i LOVE chris's idea! lets do it! > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> ben > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Patrick Hunt < > ph...@apache.org> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Ben, do you also want to update the "Applying a patch" section > > to > > >>>>> make > > >>>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>> git specific? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> We (committers) should move to a model where authors get > proper > > >>>>> credit > > >>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>> git. Our old workflow in svn resulted in only the committer > > being > > >>>>>>>> listed > > >>>>>>>>>> (except that we listed the patch author in the commit > message). > > >> We > > >>>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>> move to a model where the author of the patch gets proper > credit > > >> in > > >>>>>>>> git. > > >>>>>>>>> I > > >>>>>>>>>> believe we will get that if we use git for patch > > >>>>> creation/application? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Chris brought up getting rid of CHANGES.txt recently on the > dev > > >>> list > > >>>>>>>> in a > > >>>>>>>>>> separate thread - Chris do you want to implement that change > now > > >>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>> we've > > >>>>>>>>>> moved to git? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Patrick > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Benjamin Reed < > > br...@apache.org > > >>> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) actually in the previous step that was just adding new > > >> files. > > >>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>>>>> still > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> need the commit -a for the rest of the changes. that's my > > >> normal > > >>>>>>>>>>>> workflow. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think that will be confusing for most folks. They > typically > > >>>>> stage > > >>>>>>>>>>>> all the changes and then commit or don't stage and use -a. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> do you mind fixing it with your workflow. commit -a doesn't > get > > >>> new > > >>>>>>>>>>> files, which is why you need to do the add, but i'm not the > > most > > >>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated git user, so > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) i figured since we are using git now that we should use > > >> git's > > >>>>>>>>>>>> default. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the patch should work (by default it seems to strip the > first > > >>>>> path > > >>>>>>>>>>>> element). > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> does it not work for you? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It will fail precommit in it's current state. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> fixed > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Cheers > > >>>> Michael. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Cheers > > >> Michael. > > >> > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > Michael. >
