On Fri 21 Apr 2017 at 22:57, Martin d'Anjou <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Disclaimer: I do not use those plugins.
>
>
> *Can you suggest a better UI name for this trait than "Discover branches"?*
>
>
> No.
>
>>
>> *Does "Discover branches" scream out what it does?*
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> *Can you suggest a better UI name for the "Strategy" field in "Discover
>> branches"?*
>
>
> No.
>
>>
>>    - *Can you suggest better names for any of the 3 strategy options?*
>>
>> Anything that contains something resembling a double negative confuses
> me, e.g. "only that are not also", so if I understand correctly the types
> of branches that may exist, this is my suggestion:
> * Only PR branches
> * Only non-PR branches
> * All branches
>
>
>>    - Currently the GitHub Branch Source has two check boxes to control
>>    both whether it discovers pull requests originating from the repository
>>    itself and how to build those pull requests.
>>
>>    I have replaced these two checkboxes with a trait. The trait has a
>>    drop-down configuration. Selecting either the 1st or the 2nd of these
>>    options will build either the merge or the head commit and will call the
>>    branches PR-xxx. Selecting the 3rd of these options will build two 
>> branches
>>    for every PR one called PR-xxx-merge and one called PR-xxx-head.
>>
>>    *Can you suggest a better UI name for this trait than "Discover pull
>>    requests from origin"?*
>>    *Does "Discover pull requests from origin" scream out what it does?*
>>    *Can you suggest a better UI name for the "Strategy" field in
>>    "Discover pull requests from origin"?*
>>    *Can you suggest better names for any of the 3 strategy options?*
>>
>>
>> Ditto and:
> In BitBucket Server, pull-requests exist on the upstream, not on the
> origin. But what does "origin" refer to here?
> In terms of better names for the strategies:
> * Checkout target branch and merge pull-request to it
> * Checkout pull-request
> * Do both (in separate builds) - (this is my understanding and I could be
> wrong)
>

Not just separate builds, separate jobs. One job for PR-head and one job
for PR-merge


>
>
>>
>>    - *Can you suggest a better UI name for this trait than "Discover
>>    pull requests from forks"?*
>>    *Does "Discover pull requests from forks" scream out what it does?*
>>    *Can you suggest a better UI name for the "Strategy" field in
>>    "Discover pull requests from forks"?*
>>    *Can you suggest better names for any of the 3 strategy options?*
>>
>> Ditto.
>
> But now I am confused. Pull-requests in BitBucket Server have 4
> coordinates: source repo, source branch, target repo and target branch.
> This results in the target branch being created on the target repo. And the
> target repo is the only place where the pull-request can be discovered, as
> far I as I know. So I am not sure what "discovering pull-requests on forks"
> means vs. "discover pull requests from origin".
>

So this is discovering PRs where the source repo != target repo


>
> To me, a Jenkins Job should have a single purpose, and to me a single
> purpose is to merge a pull request to a single possible destination. If the
> Jenkins Job is able to merge to different destinations, then it's not the
> same Job because it does not serve the same purpose.
>

Each "head" gets their own Job


>
>
>>    - *Can you suggest a better UI name for the "Trust" field in
>>    "Discover pull requests from forks"?*
>>    *Can you suggest better names for any of the current base default 3
>>    strategy options: "Collaborators", "None" and "Everyone"?*
>>
>> Who is the list of collaborators and how does someone get there?
> None -> Nobody?
>
>
>>
>>    - Currently, hidden in the advanced box there is an Includes/Excludes
>>    option. There are a lot of requests for different syntaxes of specifying
>>    includes / excludes. Due to backwards compatibility we cannot change the
>>    syntax, so my solution is to allow plugins to extend and add traits for 
>> the
>>    different syntaxes.
>>
>>    To retain backwards compatibility of existing configurations, we need
>>    to provide one that uses the current wildcard (without globs) matching.
>>
>>    *Can you suggest a better UI name for this trait than "Filter by name
>>    (with wildcards)"?*
>>
>> What is being filtered by name? The name of the pull-request branch? The
> name of the pull-request?
>
> Hope this helps,
> Martin
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Jenkins Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/a6551467-5575-44f1-a0be-4ce644422668%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/a6551467-5575-44f1-a0be-4ce644422668%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-- 
Sent from my phone

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-users/CA%2BnPnMy0LTi%3DE5F0PNMbSgEdFKM3iCwTetY67ud1BWUC-ZU%3D5w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to