Hi Patrick, We can change the script so that it asks for jira password input on CLI prompt if the JIRA username is set, for example. The change should be straigthforward.
Alternatively, the python systems I have dealt with put credentials for database access, etc, in configuration -- sometimes hidden -- files (say, .env), but yet it is clear text stored. Anyone has other suggestions? Eddie Em 9 de nov de 2016 4:18 PM, "Patrick Hunt" <ph...@apache.org> escreveu: > Is there any alternative to step 4 as documented here? > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ > Merging+Github+Pull+Requests > > specifically it's asking to "export JIRA_PASSWORD=mypassword" which I feel > very uncomfortable doing. > > Patrick > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Edward Ribeiro <edward.ribe...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > AFAIK, yes. I say, if you mean to run unit tests and other CI tasks on > PR. > > > > PS: I have just created a simple script HowTo at > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ > > Merging+Github+Pull+Requests > > and linked from https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ > > Index > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > What about QA, are we still missing a github pre-commit queue? > > > > > > -Flavio > > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2016, at 18:53, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The comment bridging should be fixed now - see INFRA-12752 for more > > > > details. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> The git PR *review* comments for ZOOKEEPER-2597 didn't show up on > > > JIRA. > > > >> > > > >> The bridge was working the day Infra made the change - see the > > previous > > > >> comments made by git bot on ZOOKEEPER-761. Now it seems stop > working. > > I > > > am > > > >> reopening INFRA-12752 and building a case. > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Edward Ribeiro < > > > edward.ribe...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Dear community, > > > >>> > > > >>> The zk-merger-pr.py script has been merged into master (thanks a > LOT > > > Ben > > > >>> Reed for reviewing/discussing/testing and commiting): > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2597 > > > >>> > > > >>> As stated in the issue and on GH, this tool is a modified version > of > > > >>> similar tools from Kafka, that is a copy of a Spark's one. It has > > some > > > >>> rough edges so we will certainly benefit from further enhancements > > and > > > >>> fixes. I changed the smallest possible pieces of code, just to make > > it > > > >>> work > > > >>> on a ZK repo so the credits go to the original authors. > > > >>> > > > >>> Some notes: > > > >>> > > > >>> 1. The git PR *review* comments for ZOOKEEPER-2597 didn't show up > on > > > JIRA. > > > >>> Only the opening and closing of the issue. Can we double check this > > as > > > >>> INFRA-12752 is closed, Michael Han? > > > >>> > > > >>> 2. I scribbled a draft on how use the tool at > > > >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i00ZXjrW2fu17vr_h7F1bUrq > > > >>> Xg3urw4Hm7KirQDpPIU/edit > > > >>> (still very crude, but feel free to improve it). I would like to > move > > > >>> this > > > >>> text to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ > Index > > > but > > > >>> looks like I don't have permission to create a page there yet. Any > > > help? > > > >>> > > > >>> Best regards, > > > >>> Eddie > > > >>> > > > >>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> FYI infra did some work in INFRA-12752 and the git PR comments can > > be > > > >>>> pushed to Apache JIRA. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> This is not supported at the moment if nothing has changed: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11000 < > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11000> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> -Flavio > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> On 08 Oct 2016, at 00:54, Benjamin Reed <br...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> it doesn't look like we need to setup keys. this seems to work > for > > > >>> me: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/#committers-getting-started > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> it does seem strange that we aren't using public keys and that > i'm > > > >>>>> sticking > > > >>>>>> a password in .netrc :P i'm wondering if other projects were > able > > to > > > >>>> get > > > >>>>>> this going over ssh. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> i'll take a whack at cleaning up the svn and subversion > > references. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ben > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Camille Fournier < > > > >>> cami...@apache.org> > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Hey folks, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> So I'm trying to get in a patch but this has not been updated > to > > > >>> tell > > > >>>>>>> committers how to actually get the git keys set up: > > > >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ > > > >>>>> Committing+changes > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Can someone float me a link that says how to do this? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Also a bunch of our documentation still discusses SVN and not > > git, > > > >>>> which > > > >>>>>>> means we are not done with this migration. If you were pushing > > for > > > >>>> this > > > >>>>>>> change can you please do some due diligence on the wikis and > > > >>> correct > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>>>> stuff that refers to SVN? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>> C > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Edward Ribeiro < > > > >>>>> edward.ribe...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 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/ > da2a6a6c9a508610d52d0755fae835 > > 2d > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> "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. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> Cheers > > > >>>> Michael. > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Cheers > > > >> Michael. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers > > > > Michael. > > > > > > > > >
