Re: Reminder to use draft mode
No, I was not aware, so I think people will have to remember for themselves.
Still, I think this is minor. Thank you for the info!
On 5/19/21, 4:28 AM, "Alberto Bustamante Reyes"
wrote:
Most probably you are already aware of it (and this is why it has not been
changed in geode repo) but it seems github does not allow to configure draft
PRs as default option for a given repository.
De: Mark Hanson
Enviado: viernes, 7 de mayo de 2021 23:06
Para: dev@geode.apache.org ; Blake Bender
Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the basic consensus here is that the
starting state for all PRs should be draft. We should change the default if we
can... The sticky part is when to put a PR from standard to draft. If we always
start with draft mode, lets deal with that when it becomes a real problem. I
don't think it will be a significant one if the consensus is we start with
draft PRs.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/7/21, 2:03 PM, "Mark Hanson" wrote:
@Blake Bender The same goes for the geode code. The PR pipeline is
*the* way to know if we broke something or not. Most people don't know how to
run the individual tests.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/7/21, 10:07 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
+1 for draft mode as default. I'm forever switching to it in
geode-native already, because the most convenient way for us to get feedback on
build/test status for all platforms is to run a change through CI, and the only
way to do that is to submit it as a PR.
Thanks,
Blake
-Original Message-
From: Alberto Bustamante Reyes
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:19 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: RE: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Mark's proposal of setting draft mode as default when
creating PRs (Im wondering if a new VOTE thread is needed to approve it)
And also +1 to Donal's comments.
De: Darrel Schneider
Enviado: jueves, 6 de mayo de 2021 21:43
Para: dev@geode.apache.org
Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Donal's comments
From: Donal Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Naba's PR flow described above.
Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it
prevents people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change
significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert
to the "ready to review" state - hardly a major inconvenience.
However, the real tricky question here seems to be "When should you
move a PR from "Ready to review" back into draft mode?" I tend to agree with
Jens that a flaky test failure by itself isn't enough to warrant putting a PR
back into draft mode, as it's often possible to identify the failure as being
due to an existing known bug and merge the PR knowing that your changes aren't
the cause. We don't require that all PR tests are green before merging, just
some of them, so it's reasonable to assume that we don't require all PR tests
to be green before a PR is considered ready for review either.
Minor edits due to review comments (like spelling mistakes or minor
code quality/style changes) also don't feel like they should cause a PR to be
put back into draft mode, as while the contents of the PR may change because of
them, it won't invalidate other in-progress reviews if it does, or
significantly alter the nature of the PR.
For me, the bar for whether a PR should be put back into draft mode
is if you know that its current state is not reflective of the final state that
will be merged into develop. In general, the only time that should happen is if
you've received review feedback that will require a change of approach or
significant refactoring/additional code. It's the difference between "needs a
little polish" and "needs more work," I think. Obviously, what counts as
"significant" is entirely subjective, so this isn't much use as a hard and fast
rule, but a rough guide might be that if a reviewer has requested changes that
would invalidate or render obsolete/redundant any additional reviews that come
in before those changes are applied, moving back to draft mode would probably
be a good idea.
Donal
From: Nabarun Nag
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:22 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
RE: Reminder to use draft mode
Most probably you are already aware of it (and this is why it has not been
changed in geode repo) but it seems github does not allow to configure draft
PRs as default option for a given repository.
De: Mark Hanson
Enviado: viernes, 7 de mayo de 2021 23:06
Para: dev@geode.apache.org ; Blake Bender
Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the basic consensus here is that the
starting state for all PRs should be draft. We should change the default if we
can... The sticky part is when to put a PR from standard to draft. If we always
start with draft mode, lets deal with that when it becomes a real problem. I
don't think it will be a significant one if the consensus is we start with
draft PRs.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/7/21, 2:03 PM, "Mark Hanson" wrote:
@Blake Bender The same goes for the geode code. The PR pipeline is *the*
way to know if we broke something or not. Most people don't know how to run the
individual tests.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/7/21, 10:07 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
+1 for draft mode as default. I'm forever switching to it in
geode-native already, because the most convenient way for us to get feedback on
build/test status for all platforms is to run a change through CI, and the only
way to do that is to submit it as a PR.
Thanks,
Blake
-Original Message-
From: Alberto Bustamante Reyes
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:19 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: RE: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Mark's proposal of setting draft mode as default when creating
PRs (Im wondering if a new VOTE thread is needed to approve it)
And also +1 to Donal's comments.
De: Darrel Schneider
Enviado: jueves, 6 de mayo de 2021 21:43
Para: dev@geode.apache.org
Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Donal's comments
From: Donal Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Naba's PR flow described above.
Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it
prevents people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change
significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert
to the "ready to review" state - hardly a major inconvenience.
However, the real tricky question here seems to be "When should you
move a PR from "Ready to review" back into draft mode?" I tend to agree with
Jens that a flaky test failure by itself isn't enough to warrant putting a PR
back into draft mode, as it's often possible to identify the failure as being
due to an existing known bug and merge the PR knowing that your changes aren't
the cause. We don't require that all PR tests are green before merging, just
some of them, so it's reasonable to assume that we don't require all PR tests
to be green before a PR is considered ready for review either.
Minor edits due to review comments (like spelling mistakes or minor
code quality/style changes) also don't feel like they should cause a PR to be
put back into draft mode, as while the contents of the PR may change because of
them, it won't invalidate other in-progress reviews if it does, or
significantly alter the nature of the PR.
For me, the bar for whether a PR should be put back into draft mode is
if you know that its current state is not reflective of the final state that
will be merged into develop. In general, the only time that should happen is if
you've received review feedback that will require a change of approach or
significant refactoring/additional code. It's the difference between "needs a
little polish" and "needs more work," I think. Obviously, what counts as
"significant" is entirely subjective, so this isn't much use as a hard and fast
rule, but a rough guide might be that if a reviewer has requested changes that
would invalidate or render obsolete/redundant any additional reviews that come
in before those changes are applied, moving back to draft mode would probably
be a good idea.
Donal
From: Nabarun Nag
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:22 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to
start the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is merged
Henc
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the basic consensus here is that the
starting state for all PRs should be draft. We should change the default if we
can... The sticky part is when to put a PR from standard to draft. If we always
start with draft mode, lets deal with that when it becomes a real problem. I
don't think it will be a significant one if the consensus is we start with
draft PRs.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/7/21, 2:03 PM, "Mark Hanson" wrote:
@Blake Bender The same goes for the geode code. The PR pipeline is *the*
way to know if we broke something or not. Most people don't know how to run the
individual tests.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/7/21, 10:07 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
+1 for draft mode as default. I'm forever switching to it in
geode-native already, because the most convenient way for us to get feedback on
build/test status for all platforms is to run a change through CI, and the only
way to do that is to submit it as a PR.
Thanks,
Blake
-Original Message-
From: Alberto Bustamante Reyes
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:19 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: RE: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Mark's proposal of setting draft mode as default when creating
PRs (Im wondering if a new VOTE thread is needed to approve it)
And also +1 to Donal's comments.
De: Darrel Schneider
Enviado: jueves, 6 de mayo de 2021 21:43
Para: dev@geode.apache.org
Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Donal's comments
From: Donal Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Naba's PR flow described above.
Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it
prevents people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change
significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert
to the "ready to review" state - hardly a major inconvenience.
However, the real tricky question here seems to be "When should you
move a PR from "Ready to review" back into draft mode?" I tend to agree with
Jens that a flaky test failure by itself isn't enough to warrant putting a PR
back into draft mode, as it's often possible to identify the failure as being
due to an existing known bug and merge the PR knowing that your changes aren't
the cause. We don't require that all PR tests are green before merging, just
some of them, so it's reasonable to assume that we don't require all PR tests
to be green before a PR is considered ready for review either.
Minor edits due to review comments (like spelling mistakes or minor
code quality/style changes) also don't feel like they should cause a PR to be
put back into draft mode, as while the contents of the PR may change because of
them, it won't invalidate other in-progress reviews if it does, or
significantly alter the nature of the PR.
For me, the bar for whether a PR should be put back into draft mode is
if you know that its current state is not reflective of the final state that
will be merged into develop. In general, the only time that should happen is if
you've received review feedback that will require a change of approach or
significant refactoring/additional code. It's the difference between "needs a
little polish" and "needs more work," I think. Obviously, what counts as
"significant" is entirely subjective, so this isn't much use as a hard and fast
rule, but a rough guide might be that if a reviewer has requested changes that
would invalidate or render obsolete/redundant any additional reviews that come
in before those changes are applied, moving back to draft mode would probably
be a good idea.
Donal
From: Nabarun Nag
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:22 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to
start the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is merged
Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged
This way of doing work also has the following advantages:
* A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to
fail
* A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and
then again after changing the code to fix the failure
* Unreviewed code post-test fixe
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
@Blake Bender The same goes for the geode code. The PR pipeline is *the* way to
know if we broke something or not. Most people don't know how to run the
individual tests.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/7/21, 10:07 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
+1 for draft mode as default. I'm forever switching to it in geode-native
already, because the most convenient way for us to get feedback on build/test
status for all platforms is to run a change through CI, and the only way to do
that is to submit it as a PR.
Thanks,
Blake
-Original Message-
From: Alberto Bustamante Reyes
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:19 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: RE: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Mark's proposal of setting draft mode as default when creating PRs
(Im wondering if a new VOTE thread is needed to approve it)
And also +1 to Donal's comments.
De: Darrel Schneider
Enviado: jueves, 6 de mayo de 2021 21:43
Para: dev@geode.apache.org
Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Donal's comments
From: Donal Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Naba's PR flow described above.
Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it prevents
people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change
significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert
to the "ready to review" state - hardly a major inconvenience.
However, the real tricky question here seems to be "When should you move a
PR from "Ready to review" back into draft mode?" I tend to agree with Jens that
a flaky test failure by itself isn't enough to warrant putting a PR back into
draft mode, as it's often possible to identify the failure as being due to an
existing known bug and merge the PR knowing that your changes aren't the cause.
We don't require that all PR tests are green before merging, just some of them,
so it's reasonable to assume that we don't require all PR tests to be green
before a PR is considered ready for review either.
Minor edits due to review comments (like spelling mistakes or minor code
quality/style changes) also don't feel like they should cause a PR to be put
back into draft mode, as while the contents of the PR may change because of
them, it won't invalidate other in-progress reviews if it does, or
significantly alter the nature of the PR.
For me, the bar for whether a PR should be put back into draft mode is if
you know that its current state is not reflective of the final state that will
be merged into develop. In general, the only time that should happen is if
you've received review feedback that will require a change of approach or
significant refactoring/additional code. It's the difference between "needs a
little polish" and "needs more work," I think. Obviously, what counts as
"significant" is entirely subjective, so this isn't much use as a hard and fast
rule, but a rough guide might be that if a reviewer has requested changes that
would invalidate or render obsolete/redundant any additional reviews that come
in before those changes are applied, moving back to draft mode would probably
be a good idea.
Donal
From: Nabarun Nag
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:22 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to start
the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is merged
Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged
This way of doing work also has the following advantages:
* A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to fail
* A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and then
again after changing the code to fix the failure
* Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged
I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for engineers
who review code.
This flow of PRs feels more efficient:
* Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned
* PRechecks fail
* change/fix code
* tests pass - all green
* convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned
* reviewers review
Regards
Naba
From: Owen Nichols
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to
RE: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 for draft mode as default. I'm forever switching to it in geode-native already, because the most convenient way for us to get feedback on build/test status for all platforms is to run a change through CI, and the only way to do that is to submit it as a PR. Thanks, Blake -Original Message- From: Alberto Bustamante Reyes Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:19 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: RE: Reminder to use draft mode +1 to Mark's proposal of setting draft mode as default when creating PRs (Im wondering if a new VOTE thread is needed to approve it) And also +1 to Donal's comments. De: Darrel Schneider Enviado: jueves, 6 de mayo de 2021 21:43 Para: dev@geode.apache.org Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode +1 to Donal's comments From: Donal Evans Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode +1 to Naba's PR flow described above. Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it prevents people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert to the "ready to review" state - hardly a major inconvenience. However, the real tricky question here seems to be "When should you move a PR from "Ready to review" back into draft mode?" I tend to agree with Jens that a flaky test failure by itself isn't enough to warrant putting a PR back into draft mode, as it's often possible to identify the failure as being due to an existing known bug and merge the PR knowing that your changes aren't the cause. We don't require that all PR tests are green before merging, just some of them, so it's reasonable to assume that we don't require all PR tests to be green before a PR is considered ready for review either. Minor edits due to review comments (like spelling mistakes or minor code quality/style changes) also don't feel like they should cause a PR to be put back into draft mode, as while the contents of the PR may change because of them, it won't invalidate other in-progress reviews if it does, or significantly alter the nature of the PR. For me, the bar for whether a PR should be put back into draft mode is if you know that its current state is not reflective of the final state that will be merged into develop. In general, the only time that should happen is if you've received review feedback that will require a change of approach or significant refactoring/additional code. It's the difference between "needs a little polish" and "needs more work," I think. Obviously, what counts as "significant" is entirely subjective, so this isn't much use as a hard and fast rule, but a rough guide might be that if a reviewer has requested changes that would invalidate or render obsolete/redundant any additional reviews that come in before those changes are applied, moving back to draft mode would probably be a good idea. Donal From: Nabarun Nag Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:22 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to start the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass. There has been this situation where, * PR is created (reviewers are assigned) * approved * Tests fail * code is changed * no reviews * code is merged Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged This way of doing work also has the following advantages: * A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to fail * A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and then again after changing the code to fix the failure * Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for engineers who review code. This flow of PRs feels more efficient: * Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned * PRechecks fail * change/fix code * tests pass - all green * convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned * reviewers review Regards Naba From: Owen Nichols Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to make any assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I will stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My apologies for the inconvenience this has caused. On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote: I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure. I don’t retrigger P
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Side note: I think using discussion to achieve consensus on topics like this tends to work better than [VOTE] threads. If we fail to reach a consensus we can resort to a vote thread, or for reasons spelled out in [1]. IMHO, Anthony [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html On May 6, 2021, at 1:18 PM, Alberto Bustamante Reyes mailto:alberto.bustamante.re...@est.tech>> wrote: (Im wondering if a new VOTE thread is needed to approve it)
RE: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Mark's proposal of setting draft mode as default when creating PRs (Im wondering if a new VOTE thread is needed to approve it) And also +1 to Donal's comments. De: Darrel Schneider Enviado: jueves, 6 de mayo de 2021 21:43 Para: dev@geode.apache.org Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode +1 to Donal's comments From: Donal Evans Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode +1 to Naba's PR flow described above. Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it prevents people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert to the "ready to review" state - hardly a major inconvenience. However, the real tricky question here seems to be "When should you move a PR from "Ready to review" back into draft mode?" I tend to agree with Jens that a flaky test failure by itself isn't enough to warrant putting a PR back into draft mode, as it's often possible to identify the failure as being due to an existing known bug and merge the PR knowing that your changes aren't the cause. We don't require that all PR tests are green before merging, just some of them, so it's reasonable to assume that we don't require all PR tests to be green before a PR is considered ready for review either. Minor edits due to review comments (like spelling mistakes or minor code quality/style changes) also don't feel like they should cause a PR to be put back into draft mode, as while the contents of the PR may change because of them, it won't invalidate other in-progress reviews if it does, or significantly alter the nature of the PR. For me, the bar for whether a PR should be put back into draft mode is if you know that its current state is not reflective of the final state that will be merged into develop. In general, the only time that should happen is if you've received review feedback that will require a change of approach or significant refactoring/additional code. It's the difference between "needs a little polish" and "needs more work," I think. Obviously, what counts as "significant" is entirely subjective, so this isn't much use as a hard and fast rule, but a rough guide might be that if a reviewer has requested changes that would invalidate or render obsolete/redundant any additional reviews that come in before those changes are applied, moving back to draft mode would probably be a good idea. Donal From: Nabarun Nag Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:22 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to start the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass. There has been this situation where, * PR is created (reviewers are assigned) * approved * Tests fail * code is changed * no reviews * code is merged Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged This way of doing work also has the following advantages: * A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to fail * A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and then again after changing the code to fix the failure * Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for engineers who review code. This flow of PRs feels more efficient: * Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned * PRechecks fail * change/fix code * tests pass - all green * convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned * reviewers review Regards Naba From: Owen Nichols Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to make any assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I will stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My apologies for the inconvenience this has caused. On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote: I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure. I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get to green’ – related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either. It would be frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone retriggers a job. Yes I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is unrelated. I don’t merge if any checks are still pending. Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most of my PRs are module specific and so there is
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Donal's comments From: Donal Evans Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode +1 to Naba's PR flow described above. Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it prevents people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert to the "ready to review" state - hardly a major inconvenience. However, the real tricky question here seems to be "When should you move a PR from "Ready to review" back into draft mode?" I tend to agree with Jens that a flaky test failure by itself isn't enough to warrant putting a PR back into draft mode, as it's often possible to identify the failure as being due to an existing known bug and merge the PR knowing that your changes aren't the cause. We don't require that all PR tests are green before merging, just some of them, so it's reasonable to assume that we don't require all PR tests to be green before a PR is considered ready for review either. Minor edits due to review comments (like spelling mistakes or minor code quality/style changes) also don't feel like they should cause a PR to be put back into draft mode, as while the contents of the PR may change because of them, it won't invalidate other in-progress reviews if it does, or significantly alter the nature of the PR. For me, the bar for whether a PR should be put back into draft mode is if you know that its current state is not reflective of the final state that will be merged into develop. In general, the only time that should happen is if you've received review feedback that will require a change of approach or significant refactoring/additional code. It's the difference between "needs a little polish" and "needs more work," I think. Obviously, what counts as "significant" is entirely subjective, so this isn't much use as a hard and fast rule, but a rough guide might be that if a reviewer has requested changes that would invalidate or render obsolete/redundant any additional reviews that come in before those changes are applied, moving back to draft mode would probably be a good idea. Donal From: Nabarun Nag Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:22 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to start the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass. There has been this situation where, * PR is created (reviewers are assigned) * approved * Tests fail * code is changed * no reviews * code is merged Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged This way of doing work also has the following advantages: * A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to fail * A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and then again after changing the code to fix the failure * Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for engineers who review code. This flow of PRs feels more efficient: * Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned * PRechecks fail * change/fix code * tests pass - all green * convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned * reviewers review Regards Naba From: Owen Nichols Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to make any assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I will stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My apologies for the inconvenience this has caused. On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote: I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure. I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get to green’ – related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either. It would be frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone retriggers a job. Yes I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is unrelated. I don’t merge if any checks are still pending. Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most of my PRs are module specific and so there is collaboration between my team and we typically know the state of our various PRs. I don’t feel like there is much need for any process around switching in and out of Draft mode. Much less for an ‘external’ contributor to make decisions on our behalf. Has some situation arisen that is driving this? It feels like there is s
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Naba's PR flow described above.
Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it prevents
people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change
significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert
to the "ready to review" state - hardly a major inconvenience.
However, the real tricky question here seems to be "When should you move a PR
from "Ready to review" back into draft mode?" I tend to agree with Jens that a
flaky test failure by itself isn't enough to warrant putting a PR back into
draft mode, as it's often possible to identify the failure as being due to an
existing known bug and merge the PR knowing that your changes aren't the cause.
We don't require that all PR tests are green before merging, just some of them,
so it's reasonable to assume that we don't require all PR tests to be green
before a PR is considered ready for review either.
Minor edits due to review comments (like spelling mistakes or minor code
quality/style changes) also don't feel like they should cause a PR to be put
back into draft mode, as while the contents of the PR may change because of
them, it won't invalidate other in-progress reviews if it does, or
significantly alter the nature of the PR.
For me, the bar for whether a PR should be put back into draft mode is if you
know that its current state is not reflective of the final state that will be
merged into develop. In general, the only time that should happen is if you've
received review feedback that will require a change of approach or significant
refactoring/additional code. It's the difference between "needs a little
polish" and "needs more work," I think. Obviously, what counts as "significant"
is entirely subjective, so this isn't much use as a hard and fast rule, but a
rough guide might be that if a reviewer has requested changes that would
invalidate or render obsolete/redundant any additional reviews that come in
before those changes are applied, moving back to draft mode would probably be a
good idea.
Donal
From: Nabarun Nag
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:22 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to start the
PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is merged
Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged
This way of doing work also has the following advantages:
* A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to fail
* A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and then
again after changing the code to fix the failure
* Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged
I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for engineers who
review code.
This flow of PRs feels more efficient:
* Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned
* PRechecks fail
* change/fix code
* tests pass - all green
* convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned
* reviewers review
Regards
Naba
From: Owen Nichols
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to make any
assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I will
stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My apologies
for the inconvenience this has caused.
On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote:
I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For
myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some
innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure.
I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get to green’
– related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either. It would be
frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone retriggers a job. Yes
I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is unrelated. I don’t merge
if any checks are still pending.
Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most of my PRs
are module specific and so there is collaboration between my team and we
typically know the state of our various PRs. I don’t feel like there is much
need for any process around switching in and out of Draft mode. Much less for
an ‘external’ contributor to make decisions on our behalf.
Has some situation arisen that is driving this? It feels like there is some
underlying issue that isn’t being fully communicated.
--Jens
From: Owen Nichols
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject:
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
To be clear. I’m absolutely in favor of using draft mode as an initial
indicator of the state of a PR.
What I’m not in favor of is requiring the PR to be switched back and forth.
Certainly, if any individual developer wants to do that, of course that’s their
prerogative.
--Jens.
From: Mark Hanson
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:45 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I agree, I like the draft mode switch. The hesitations that I have are
mentioned by Jens in that you can have failures that are unrelated. Especially
DUnits at this point. Perhaps for required tests following the draft mode
approach is better. I have had many cases where I see PRs that obviously need
work asking for my review and I have to look past them in my review requested
PR list. There have been several PRs that have been untouched for months that
were failing tests but my review was required...
+1 for draft mode as the best approach to get to passing tests, then normal
mode once the PR is ready. (not that we are voting)
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/6/21, 10:22 AM, "Nabarun Nag" wrote:
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to start
the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is merged
Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged
This way of doing work also has the following advantages:
* A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to fail
* A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and then
again after changing the code to fix the failure
* Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged
I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for engineers
who review code.
This flow of PRs feels more efficient:
* Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned
* PRechecks fail
* change/fix code
* tests pass - all green
* convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned
* reviewers review
Regards
Naba
From: Owen Nichols
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to make
any assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I will
stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My apologies
for the inconvenience this has caused.
On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote:
I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For
myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some
innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure.
I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get to
green’ – related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either. It would
be frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone retriggers a job.
Yes I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is unrelated. I don’t
merge if any checks are still pending.
Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most of my
PRs are module specific and so there is collaboration between my team and we
typically know the state of our various PRs. I don’t feel like there is much
need for any process around switching in and out of Draft mode. Much less for
an ‘external’ contributor to make decisions on our behalf.
Has some situation arisen that is driving this? It feels like there is
some underlying issue that isn’t being fully communicated.
--Jens
From: Owen Nichols
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
A PR in "Draft" mode simply conveys that at least one more commit is
coming before it will be "done". Reviewers generously volunteer their time to
look at your PR, and are welcome to look at it while in draft mode if they
wish, but if they are quite busy, some may prefer to wait until the PR is
plausibly code-complete before setting aside time to review it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I don't mean that flaky failures should mean a
PR is not done. You can always refer to the latest mass test report for a list
of known flaky failures, but often I will see those and retrigger them for you
anyway.
I expect that most PR submitters will be monitoring their own PR checks
and taking it back to draft mode as soon as they realize more changes are
needed. But if as a community we agree to use draft mode to communicate status
in this way, it shouldn't matter who does it.
Due to CODEOWNERS, some reviewers have a huge
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I have a thought. What if draft mode was the default state for the PR button
and you had to select normal mode for the PR button?
Anyway, just my take.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/6/21, 10:45 AM, "Mark Hanson" wrote:
I agree, I like the draft mode switch. The hesitations that I have are
mentioned by Jens in that you can have failures that are unrelated. Especially
DUnits at this point. Perhaps for required tests following the draft mode
approach is better. I have had many cases where I see PRs that obviously need
work asking for my review and I have to look past them in my review requested
PR list. There have been several PRs that have been untouched for months that
were failing tests but my review was required...
+1 for draft mode as the best approach to get to passing tests, then normal
mode once the PR is ready. (not that we are voting)
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/6/21, 10:22 AM, "Nabarun Nag" wrote:
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to
start the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is merged
Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged
This way of doing work also has the following advantages:
* A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to
fail
* A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and
then again after changing the code to fix the failure
* Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged
I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for
engineers who review code.
This flow of PRs feels more efficient:
* Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned
* PRechecks fail
* change/fix code
* tests pass - all green
* convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned
* reviewers review
Regards
Naba
From: Owen Nichols
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to
make any assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I
will stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My
apologies for the inconvenience this has caused.
On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote:
I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style.
For myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has
some innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure.
I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get
to green’ – related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either. It
would be frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone retriggers a
job. Yes I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is unrelated. I
don’t merge if any checks are still pending.
Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most of
my PRs are module specific and so there is collaboration between my team and we
typically know the state of our various PRs. I don’t feel like there is much
need for any process around switching in and out of Draft mode. Much less for
an ‘external’ contributor to make decisions on our behalf.
Has some situation arisen that is driving this? It feels like there
is some underlying issue that isn’t being fully communicated.
--Jens
From: Owen Nichols
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
A PR in "Draft" mode simply conveys that at least one more commit
is coming before it will be "done". Reviewers generously volunteer their time
to look at your PR, and are welcome to look at it while in draft mode if they
wish, but if they are quite busy, some may prefer to wait until the PR is
plausibly code-complete before setting aside time to review it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I don't mean that flaky failures should
mean a PR is not done. You can always refer to the latest mass test report for
a list of known flaky failures, but often I will see those and retrigger them
for you anyway.
I expect that most PR submitters will be monitoring their own PR
checks and taking it back to draft mode as soon as they realize more changes
are needed. But if as a community we agree to use draft mode to communicate
status in this way, it shouldn't matter who does it.
Due to CODEOWNERS, some reviewers h
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I agree, I like the draft mode switch. The hesitations that I have are
mentioned by Jens in that you can have failures that are unrelated. Especially
DUnits at this point. Perhaps for required tests following the draft mode
approach is better. I have had many cases where I see PRs that obviously need
work asking for my review and I have to look past them in my review requested
PR list. There have been several PRs that have been untouched for months that
were failing tests but my review was required...
+1 for draft mode as the best approach to get to passing tests, then normal
mode once the PR is ready. (not that we are voting)
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/6/21, 10:22 AM, "Nabarun Nag" wrote:
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to start
the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is merged
Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged
This way of doing work also has the following advantages:
* A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to fail
* A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and then
again after changing the code to fix the failure
* Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged
I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for engineers
who review code.
This flow of PRs feels more efficient:
* Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned
* PRechecks fail
* change/fix code
* tests pass - all green
* convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned
* reviewers review
Regards
Naba
From: Owen Nichols
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to make
any assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I will
stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My apologies
for the inconvenience this has caused.
On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote:
I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For
myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some
innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure.
I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get to
green’ – related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either. It would
be frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone retriggers a job.
Yes I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is unrelated. I don’t
merge if any checks are still pending.
Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most of my
PRs are module specific and so there is collaboration between my team and we
typically know the state of our various PRs. I don’t feel like there is much
need for any process around switching in and out of Draft mode. Much less for
an ‘external’ contributor to make decisions on our behalf.
Has some situation arisen that is driving this? It feels like there is
some underlying issue that isn’t being fully communicated.
--Jens
From: Owen Nichols
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
A PR in "Draft" mode simply conveys that at least one more commit is
coming before it will be "done". Reviewers generously volunteer their time to
look at your PR, and are welcome to look at it while in draft mode if they
wish, but if they are quite busy, some may prefer to wait until the PR is
plausibly code-complete before setting aside time to review it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I don't mean that flaky failures should mean a
PR is not done. You can always refer to the latest mass test report for a list
of known flaky failures, but often I will see those and retrigger them for you
anyway.
I expect that most PR submitters will be monitoring their own PR checks
and taking it back to draft mode as soon as they realize more changes are
needed. But if as a community we agree to use draft mode to communicate status
in this way, it shouldn't matter who does it.
Due to CODEOWNERS, some reviewers have a huge number of PRs in their
queue. Clearly communicating the status of your PR allows reviewers to focus
their time on PRs that are ready for review.
On 5/6/21, 8:51 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote:
Comments inline…
Please keep your PR in draft mode anytime it is not ready to be
reviewed.
This includes if you have received request for changes, or if any
PR
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok to start the
PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is merged
Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged
This way of doing work also has the following advantages:
* A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests to fail
* A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure and then
again after changing the code to fix the failure
* Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged
I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for engineers who
review code.
This flow of PRs feels more efficient:
* Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned
* PRechecks fail
* change/fix code
* tests pass - all green
* convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned
* reviewers review
Regards
Naba
From: Owen Nichols
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to make any
assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I will
stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My apologies
for the inconvenience this has caused.
On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote:
I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For
myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some
innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure.
I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get to green’
– related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either. It would be
frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone retriggers a job. Yes
I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is unrelated. I don’t merge
if any checks are still pending.
Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most of my PRs
are module specific and so there is collaboration between my team and we
typically know the state of our various PRs. I don’t feel like there is much
need for any process around switching in and out of Draft mode. Much less for
an ‘external’ contributor to make decisions on our behalf.
Has some situation arisen that is driving this? It feels like there is some
underlying issue that isn’t being fully communicated.
--Jens
From: Owen Nichols
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
A PR in "Draft" mode simply conveys that at least one more commit is coming
before it will be "done". Reviewers generously volunteer their time to look at
your PR, and are welcome to look at it while in draft mode if they wish, but if
they are quite busy, some may prefer to wait until the PR is plausibly
code-complete before setting aside time to review it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I don't mean that flaky failures should mean a PR
is not done. You can always refer to the latest mass test report for a list of
known flaky failures, but often I will see those and retrigger them for you
anyway.
I expect that most PR submitters will be monitoring their own PR checks and
taking it back to draft mode as soon as they realize more changes are needed.
But if as a community we agree to use draft mode to communicate status in this
way, it shouldn't matter who does it.
Due to CODEOWNERS, some reviewers have a huge number of PRs in their queue.
Clearly communicating the status of your PR allows reviewers to focus their
time on PRs that are ready for review.
On 5/6/21, 8:51 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote:
Comments inline…
Please keep your PR in draft mode anytime it is not ready to be
reviewed.
This includes if you have received request for changes, or if any PR
checks are not passing.
How do I know if everyone is done reviewing? Or even who might be
reviewing? Different reviewers may be looking at different areas, depending on
the scope of the change. If the PR suddenly switches back to ‘Draft` what does
that mean if I’m reviewing it? Worse still, if I’m the owner and someone else
switches it to Draft I’m not notified.
Additionally, many PR checks fail for reasons unrelated to the PR so
switching blindly to ‘Draft’ seems pointless.
If you’re reviewing someone’s PR, and notice any checks not passing or
you are requesting changes, please also click “Convert to draft”.
I really don’t agree with this – if you have an issue with a PR for
whatever reason, please respect the author and address it directly with them. I
certainly feel uncomfortable ‘messing’ with someone else’s PR and, by the same
token, don
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible to make any
assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not. I will
stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My apologies
for the inconvenience this has caused.
On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote:
I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For
myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some
innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure.
I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get to green’
– related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either. It would be
frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone retriggers a job. Yes
I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is unrelated. I don’t merge
if any checks are still pending.
Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most of my PRs
are module specific and so there is collaboration between my team and we
typically know the state of our various PRs. I don’t feel like there is much
need for any process around switching in and out of Draft mode. Much less for
an ‘external’ contributor to make decisions on our behalf.
Has some situation arisen that is driving this? It feels like there is some
underlying issue that isn’t being fully communicated.
--Jens
From: Owen Nichols
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
A PR in "Draft" mode simply conveys that at least one more commit is coming
before it will be "done". Reviewers generously volunteer their time to look at
your PR, and are welcome to look at it while in draft mode if they wish, but if
they are quite busy, some may prefer to wait until the PR is plausibly
code-complete before setting aside time to review it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I don't mean that flaky failures should mean a PR
is not done. You can always refer to the latest mass test report for a list of
known flaky failures, but often I will see those and retrigger them for you
anyway.
I expect that most PR submitters will be monitoring their own PR checks and
taking it back to draft mode as soon as they realize more changes are needed.
But if as a community we agree to use draft mode to communicate status in this
way, it shouldn't matter who does it.
Due to CODEOWNERS, some reviewers have a huge number of PRs in their queue.
Clearly communicating the status of your PR allows reviewers to focus their
time on PRs that are ready for review.
On 5/6/21, 8:51 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote:
Comments inline…
Please keep your PR in draft mode anytime it is not ready to be
reviewed.
This includes if you have received request for changes, or if any PR
checks are not passing.
How do I know if everyone is done reviewing? Or even who might be
reviewing? Different reviewers may be looking at different areas, depending on
the scope of the change. If the PR suddenly switches back to ‘Draft` what does
that mean if I’m reviewing it? Worse still, if I’m the owner and someone else
switches it to Draft I’m not notified.
Additionally, many PR checks fail for reasons unrelated to the PR so
switching blindly to ‘Draft’ seems pointless.
If you’re reviewing someone’s PR, and notice any checks not passing or
you are requesting changes, please also click “Convert to draft”.
I really don’t agree with this – if you have an issue with a PR for
whatever reason, please respect the author and address it directly with them. I
certainly feel uncomfortable ‘messing’ with someone else’s PR and, by the same
token, don’t want my PRs adjusted without my input.
--Jens
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working style. For myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if it has some innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure. I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to ‘get to green’ – related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either. It would be frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone retriggers a job. Yes I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is unrelated. I don’t merge if any checks are still pending. Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most of my PRs are module specific and so there is collaboration between my team and we typically know the state of our various PRs. I don’t feel like there is much need for any process around switching in and out of Draft mode. Much less for an ‘external’ contributor to make decisions on our behalf. Has some situation arisen that is driving this? It feels like there is some underlying issue that isn’t being fully communicated. --Jens From: Owen Nichols Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:12 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode A PR in "Draft" mode simply conveys that at least one more commit is coming before it will be "done". Reviewers generously volunteer their time to look at your PR, and are welcome to look at it while in draft mode if they wish, but if they are quite busy, some may prefer to wait until the PR is plausibly code-complete before setting aside time to review it. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I don't mean that flaky failures should mean a PR is not done. You can always refer to the latest mass test report for a list of known flaky failures, but often I will see those and retrigger them for you anyway. I expect that most PR submitters will be monitoring their own PR checks and taking it back to draft mode as soon as they realize more changes are needed. But if as a community we agree to use draft mode to communicate status in this way, it shouldn't matter who does it. Due to CODEOWNERS, some reviewers have a huge number of PRs in their queue. Clearly communicating the status of your PR allows reviewers to focus their time on PRs that are ready for review. On 5/6/21, 8:51 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote: Comments inline… Please keep your PR in draft mode anytime it is not ready to be reviewed. This includes if you have received request for changes, or if any PR checks are not passing. How do I know if everyone is done reviewing? Or even who might be reviewing? Different reviewers may be looking at different areas, depending on the scope of the change. If the PR suddenly switches back to ‘Draft` what does that mean if I’m reviewing it? Worse still, if I’m the owner and someone else switches it to Draft I’m not notified. Additionally, many PR checks fail for reasons unrelated to the PR so switching blindly to ‘Draft’ seems pointless. If you’re reviewing someone’s PR, and notice any checks not passing or you are requesting changes, please also click “Convert to draft”. I really don’t agree with this – if you have an issue with a PR for whatever reason, please respect the author and address it directly with them. I certainly feel uncomfortable ‘messing’ with someone else’s PR and, by the same token, don’t want my PRs adjusted without my input. --Jens
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
A PR in "Draft" mode simply conveys that at least one more commit is coming before it will be "done". Reviewers generously volunteer their time to look at your PR, and are welcome to look at it while in draft mode if they wish, but if they are quite busy, some may prefer to wait until the PR is plausibly code-complete before setting aside time to review it. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I don't mean that flaky failures should mean a PR is not done. You can always refer to the latest mass test report for a list of known flaky failures, but often I will see those and retrigger them for you anyway. I expect that most PR submitters will be monitoring their own PR checks and taking it back to draft mode as soon as they realize more changes are needed. But if as a community we agree to use draft mode to communicate status in this way, it shouldn't matter who does it. Due to CODEOWNERS, some reviewers have a huge number of PRs in their queue. Clearly communicating the status of your PR allows reviewers to focus their time on PRs that are ready for review. On 5/6/21, 8:51 AM, "Jens Deppe" wrote: Comments inline… Please keep your PR in draft mode anytime it is not ready to be reviewed. This includes if you have received request for changes, or if any PR checks are not passing. How do I know if everyone is done reviewing? Or even who might be reviewing? Different reviewers may be looking at different areas, depending on the scope of the change. If the PR suddenly switches back to ‘Draft` what does that mean if I’m reviewing it? Worse still, if I’m the owner and someone else switches it to Draft I’m not notified. Additionally, many PR checks fail for reasons unrelated to the PR so switching blindly to ‘Draft’ seems pointless. If you’re reviewing someone’s PR, and notice any checks not passing or you are requesting changes, please also click “Convert to draft”. I really don’t agree with this – if you have an issue with a PR for whatever reason, please respect the author and address it directly with them. I certainly feel uncomfortable ‘messing’ with someone else’s PR and, by the same token, don’t want my PRs adjusted without my input. --Jens
Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Comments inline… Please keep your PR in draft mode anytime it is not ready to be reviewed. This includes if you have received request for changes, or if any PR checks are not passing. How do I know if everyone is done reviewing? Or even who might be reviewing? Different reviewers may be looking at different areas, depending on the scope of the change. If the PR suddenly switches back to ‘Draft` what does that mean if I’m reviewing it? Worse still, if I’m the owner and someone else switches it to Draft I’m not notified. Additionally, many PR checks fail for reasons unrelated to the PR so switching blindly to ‘Draft’ seems pointless. If you’re reviewing someone’s PR, and notice any checks not passing or you are requesting changes, please also click “Convert to draft”. I really don’t agree with this – if you have an issue with a PR for whatever reason, please respect the author and address it directly with them. I certainly feel uncomfortable ‘messing’ with someone else’s PR and, by the same token, don’t want my PRs adjusted without my input. --Jens
