Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
Wonderful! Thank you for this contribution, Sandor! On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:14 AM Sandeep Moré wrote: > Great, thanks Sandor ! > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:09 AM Sandor Molnar > > wrote: > > > Hi folks! > > > > It's all set; you can check out the umbrella JIRA for further > information: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759 > > > > Additionally, you might want to read the enhanced documentation on how to > > contribute using GitHub PRs here: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/Contribution+Process#ContributionProcess-GithubWorkflow > > > > Regards, > > Sandor > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:10 PM Sandor Molnar > wrote: > > > > > "We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to > > > commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. > > The > > > Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not > > just > > > the unit tests that are run on PRs currently." > > > > > > Got it; thanks for the clarification! > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:22 PM Kevin Risden > wrote: > > > > > >> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759 with some > > >> subtasks for concrete action items to take to move forward. > > >> > > >> "If that happened we might get rid of the > > >> 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is > merged > > >> into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to > be > > >> merged if all tests were successfully passed already" > > >> > > >> We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to > > >> commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. > > The > > >> Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not > > >> just > > >> the unit tests that are run on PRs currently. > > >> Kevin Risden > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:34 AM Sandor Molnar > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > +1 for PRs. > > >> > > > >> > My two cents on Kevin's list: > > >> > - PR template is a good idea; Ambari also has one here: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/ambari/blob/trunk/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md > > >> > It would also be great if test steps are described in a detailed > > >> manner > > >> > (it helped me many times in case I had to reproduce something months > > >> after > > >> > the PR was merged) > > >> > > > >> > - comments on the PR: in case of Ambari they go to the 'Worklog' tab > > in > > >> the > > >> > corresponding JIRA, which - IMO - was better than put all of these > > stuff > > >> > within the comments; it gave us a clear separation and did not spam > > the > > >> > comments in the JIRA where other useful information may be found > > (i.e. a > > >> > design history, open point clarification, etc...). Not to mention > that > > >> the > > >> > worklogs contain many information > > >> > > > >> > - link the PRs to the JIRA automatically is essential IMO; thanks > for > > >> > pointing that out Kevin! > > >> > > > >> > - I'm not sure if it is feasible (currently does not seem to be the > > >> case) > > >> > but it would be great if contributors could invite others for review > > >> (i.e. > > >> > not only committers) > > >> > > > >> > - Apache has a Jenkins instance to run CI checks on its projects > > (Ambari > > >> > sample: > > >> https://builds.apache.org/job/Ambari-Github-PullRequest-Builder/). > > >> > Since Knox already has some jobs here (for instance > > >> > https://builds.apache.org/job/Knox-master-daily/) we might consider > > >> > creating Knox's PR Builder here too (so that all of our CI related > > jobs > > >> > would be in one place). If that happened we might get rid of the > > >> > 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is > > merged > > >> > into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit > to > > be > > >> > merged if all tests were successfully passed already > > >> > > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > Sandor > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jeffrey Rodriguez < > > jeffrey...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > +1 It is great that we are considering Pull request that would > help > > to > > >> > > increase community collaboration. > > >> > > Jeffrey E Rodriguez > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Robert Levas > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > +1. I think this is a great idea. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM larry mccay > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin! > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA. > > >> > > > > I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that > I > > am > > >> > > > looking > > >> > > > > for and then find no meaningful comments. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino < > pzamp...@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > wrot
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
Great, thanks Sandor ! On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:09 AM Sandor Molnar wrote: > Hi folks! > > It's all set; you can check out the umbrella JIRA for further information: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759 > > Additionally, you might want to read the enhanced documentation on how to > contribute using GitHub PRs here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/Contribution+Process#ContributionProcess-GithubWorkflow > > Regards, > Sandor > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:10 PM Sandor Molnar wrote: > > > "We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to > > commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. > The > > Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not > just > > the unit tests that are run on PRs currently." > > > > Got it; thanks for the clarification! > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:22 PM Kevin Risden wrote: > > > >> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759 with some > >> subtasks for concrete action items to take to move forward. > >> > >> "If that happened we might get rid of the > >> 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged > >> into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be > >> merged if all tests were successfully passed already" > >> > >> We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to > >> commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. > The > >> Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not > >> just > >> the unit tests that are run on PRs currently. > >> Kevin Risden > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:34 AM Sandor Molnar > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > +1 for PRs. > >> > > >> > My two cents on Kevin's list: > >> > - PR template is a good idea; Ambari also has one here: > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/ambari/blob/trunk/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md > >> > It would also be great if test steps are described in a detailed > >> manner > >> > (it helped me many times in case I had to reproduce something months > >> after > >> > the PR was merged) > >> > > >> > - comments on the PR: in case of Ambari they go to the 'Worklog' tab > in > >> the > >> > corresponding JIRA, which - IMO - was better than put all of these > stuff > >> > within the comments; it gave us a clear separation and did not spam > the > >> > comments in the JIRA where other useful information may be found > (i.e. a > >> > design history, open point clarification, etc...). Not to mention that > >> the > >> > worklogs contain many information > >> > > >> > - link the PRs to the JIRA automatically is essential IMO; thanks for > >> > pointing that out Kevin! > >> > > >> > - I'm not sure if it is feasible (currently does not seem to be the > >> case) > >> > but it would be great if contributors could invite others for review > >> (i.e. > >> > not only committers) > >> > > >> > - Apache has a Jenkins instance to run CI checks on its projects > (Ambari > >> > sample: > >> https://builds.apache.org/job/Ambari-Github-PullRequest-Builder/). > >> > Since Knox already has some jobs here (for instance > >> > https://builds.apache.org/job/Knox-master-daily/) we might consider > >> > creating Knox's PR Builder here too (so that all of our CI related > jobs > >> > would be in one place). If that happened we might get rid of the > >> > 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is > merged > >> > into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to > be > >> > merged if all tests were successfully passed already > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Sandor > >> > > >> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jeffrey Rodriguez < > jeffrey...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > +1 It is great that we are considering Pull request that would help > to > >> > > increase community collaboration. > >> > > Jeffrey E Rodriguez > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Robert Levas > >> >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > +1. I think this is a great idea. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM larry mccay > >> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin! > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA. > >> > > > > I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that I > am > >> > > > looking > >> > > > > for and then find no meaningful comments. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > +1, let's follow good models from the community, and save > >> ourselves > >> > > > those > >> > > > > > headaches which can be avoided. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM > >> > Kevin Risden > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI > >> checks > >> > by > >> > > > > > default > >> > > > > > > curren
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
Hi folks! It's all set; you can check out the umbrella JIRA for further information: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759 Additionally, you might want to read the enhanced documentation on how to contribute using GitHub PRs here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/Contribution+Process#ContributionProcess-GithubWorkflow Regards, Sandor On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:10 PM Sandor Molnar wrote: > "We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to > commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. The > Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not just > the unit tests that are run on PRs currently." > > Got it; thanks for the clarification! > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:22 PM Kevin Risden wrote: > >> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759 with some >> subtasks for concrete action items to take to move forward. >> >> "If that happened we might get rid of the >> 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged >> into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be >> merged if all tests were successfully passed already" >> >> We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to >> commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. The >> Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not >> just >> the unit tests that are run on PRs currently. >> Kevin Risden >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:34 AM Sandor Molnar > > >> wrote: >> >> > +1 for PRs. >> > >> > My two cents on Kevin's list: >> > - PR template is a good idea; Ambari also has one here: >> > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/ambari/blob/trunk/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md >> > It would also be great if test steps are described in a detailed >> manner >> > (it helped me many times in case I had to reproduce something months >> after >> > the PR was merged) >> > >> > - comments on the PR: in case of Ambari they go to the 'Worklog' tab in >> the >> > corresponding JIRA, which - IMO - was better than put all of these stuff >> > within the comments; it gave us a clear separation and did not spam the >> > comments in the JIRA where other useful information may be found (i.e. a >> > design history, open point clarification, etc...). Not to mention that >> the >> > worklogs contain many information >> > >> > - link the PRs to the JIRA automatically is essential IMO; thanks for >> > pointing that out Kevin! >> > >> > - I'm not sure if it is feasible (currently does not seem to be the >> case) >> > but it would be great if contributors could invite others for review >> (i.e. >> > not only committers) >> > >> > - Apache has a Jenkins instance to run CI checks on its projects (Ambari >> > sample: >> https://builds.apache.org/job/Ambari-Github-PullRequest-Builder/). >> > Since Knox already has some jobs here (for instance >> > https://builds.apache.org/job/Knox-master-daily/) we might consider >> > creating Knox's PR Builder here too (so that all of our CI related jobs >> > would be in one place). If that happened we might get rid of the >> > 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged >> > into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be >> > merged if all tests were successfully passed already >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Sandor >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jeffrey Rodriguez >> > wrote: >> > >> > > +1 It is great that we are considering Pull request that would help to >> > > increase community collaboration. >> > > Jeffrey E Rodriguez >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Robert Levas >> > > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > +1. I think this is a great idea. >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM larry mccay >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin! >> > > > > >> > > > > I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA. >> > > > > I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that I am >> > > > looking >> > > > > for and then find no meaningful comments. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > +1, let's follow good models from the community, and save >> ourselves >> > > > those >> > > > > > headaches which can be avoided. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM >> > Kevin Risden >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI >> checks >> > by >> > > > > > default >> > > > > > > currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we go this route we should make sure we have the following >> in >> > > > place: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >- PR Github Template with useful info >> > > > > > > - >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-reque
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
"We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. The Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not just the unit tests that are run on PRs currently." Got it; thanks for the clarification! On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:22 PM Kevin Risden wrote: > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759 with some > subtasks for concrete action items to take to move forward. > > "If that happened we might get rid of the > 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged > into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be > merged if all tests were successfully passed already" > > We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to > commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. The > Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not just > the unit tests that are run on PRs currently. > Kevin Risden > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:34 AM Sandor Molnar > > wrote: > > > +1 for PRs. > > > > My two cents on Kevin's list: > > - PR template is a good idea; Ambari also has one here: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ambari/blob/trunk/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md > > It would also be great if test steps are described in a detailed manner > > (it helped me many times in case I had to reproduce something months > after > > the PR was merged) > > > > - comments on the PR: in case of Ambari they go to the 'Worklog' tab in > the > > corresponding JIRA, which - IMO - was better than put all of these stuff > > within the comments; it gave us a clear separation and did not spam the > > comments in the JIRA where other useful information may be found (i.e. a > > design history, open point clarification, etc...). Not to mention that > the > > worklogs contain many information > > > > - link the PRs to the JIRA automatically is essential IMO; thanks for > > pointing that out Kevin! > > > > - I'm not sure if it is feasible (currently does not seem to be the case) > > but it would be great if contributors could invite others for review > (i.e. > > not only committers) > > > > - Apache has a Jenkins instance to run CI checks on its projects (Ambari > > sample: https://builds.apache.org/job/Ambari-Github-PullRequest-Builder/ > ). > > Since Knox already has some jobs here (for instance > > https://builds.apache.org/job/Knox-master-daily/) we might consider > > creating Knox's PR Builder here too (so that all of our CI related jobs > > would be in one place). If that happened we might get rid of the > > 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged > > into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be > > merged if all tests were successfully passed already > > > > Cheers, > > Sandor > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jeffrey Rodriguez > > wrote: > > > > > +1 It is great that we are considering Pull request that would help to > > > increase community collaboration. > > > Jeffrey E Rodriguez > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Robert Levas > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1. I think this is a great idea. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM larry mccay > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin! > > > > > > > > > > I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA. > > > > > I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that I am > > > > looking > > > > > for and then find no meaningful comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1, let's follow good models from the community, and save > ourselves > > > > those > > > > > > headaches which can be avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM > > Kevin Risden > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI > checks > > by > > > > > > default > > > > > > > currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we go this route we should make sure we have the following > in > > > > place: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- PR Github Template with useful info > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository/ > > > > > > > - Livy has an example of this > > > > > > >- Ensure that PRs are automatically linked to JIRA > > > > > > > - Not currently done today and a pain since it should > > happen > > > > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > - Calcite has this. Might be a simple INFRA ticket > > > > > > >- Documentation for contributors/committers > > > > > > > - Committers - linked github/asf accounts, how to merge a > > PR > > > > > > > - Contributors what to expect/updated docs to move from
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1759 with some subtasks for concrete action items to take to move forward. "If that happened we might get rid of the 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be merged if all tests were successfully passed already" We can't do this unless we only accept PRs. It is entirely possible to commit to the repository without opening a PR so we want tests to run. The Knox-master-daily job also runs full integration release tests and not just the unit tests that are run on PRs currently. Kevin Risden On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:34 AM Sandor Molnar wrote: > +1 for PRs. > > My two cents on Kevin's list: > - PR template is a good idea; Ambari also has one here: > > https://github.com/apache/ambari/blob/trunk/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md > It would also be great if test steps are described in a detailed manner > (it helped me many times in case I had to reproduce something months after > the PR was merged) > > - comments on the PR: in case of Ambari they go to the 'Worklog' tab in the > corresponding JIRA, which - IMO - was better than put all of these stuff > within the comments; it gave us a clear separation and did not spam the > comments in the JIRA where other useful information may be found (i.e. a > design history, open point clarification, etc...). Not to mention that the > worklogs contain many information > > - link the PRs to the JIRA automatically is essential IMO; thanks for > pointing that out Kevin! > > - I'm not sure if it is feasible (currently does not seem to be the case) > but it would be great if contributors could invite others for review (i.e. > not only committers) > > - Apache has a Jenkins instance to run CI checks on its projects (Ambari > sample: https://builds.apache.org/job/Ambari-Github-PullRequest-Builder/). > Since Knox already has some jobs here (for instance > https://builds.apache.org/job/Knox-master-daily/) we might consider > creating Knox's PR Builder here too (so that all of our CI related jobs > would be in one place). If that happened we might get rid of the > 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged > into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be > merged if all tests were successfully passed already > > Cheers, > Sandor > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jeffrey Rodriguez > wrote: > > > +1 It is great that we are considering Pull request that would help to > > increase community collaboration. > > Jeffrey E Rodriguez > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Robert Levas > > > wrote: > > > > > +1. I think this is a great idea. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM larry mccay wrote: > > > > > > > Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin! > > > > > > > > I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA. > > > > I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that I am > > > looking > > > > for and then find no meaningful comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1, let's follow good models from the community, and save ourselves > > > those > > > > > headaches which can be avoided. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM > Kevin Risden > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI checks > by > > > > > default > > > > > > currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches > > > > > > > > > > > > If we go this route we should make sure we have the following in > > > place: > > > > > > > > > > > >- PR Github Template with useful info > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository/ > > > > > > - Livy has an example of this > > > > > >- Ensure that PRs are automatically linked to JIRA > > > > > > - Not currently done today and a pain since it should > happen > > > > > > automatically. > > > > > > - Calcite has this. Might be a simple INFRA ticket > > > > > >- Documentation for contributors/committers > > > > > > - Committers - linked github/asf accounts, how to merge a > PR > > > > > > - Contributors what to expect/updated docs to move from > patch > > > -> > > > > PR > > > > > >- Ensure that only squash/rebase/merge commits are allowed > > > > > > - Lot of nuance here and Calcite recently had INFRA disable > > the > > > > > > buttons for types that didn't fit their model > > > > > >- Decided what to do with PR comments > > > > > > - Some projects have PR comments go directly to JIRA > > comments. > > > > > > - Others have them go to worklog in JIRA. > > > > > > - Others don't capture PR comments in JIRA > > > > > > > > > > > > So all in all in favor just need to make sure we have the > plumbing > > in > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
+1 for PRs. My two cents on Kevin's list: - PR template is a good idea; Ambari also has one here: https://github.com/apache/ambari/blob/trunk/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md It would also be great if test steps are described in a detailed manner (it helped me many times in case I had to reproduce something months after the PR was merged) - comments on the PR: in case of Ambari they go to the 'Worklog' tab in the corresponding JIRA, which - IMO - was better than put all of these stuff within the comments; it gave us a clear separation and did not spam the comments in the JIRA where other useful information may be found (i.e. a design history, open point clarification, etc...). Not to mention that the worklogs contain many information - link the PRs to the JIRA automatically is essential IMO; thanks for pointing that out Kevin! - I'm not sure if it is feasible (currently does not seem to be the case) but it would be great if contributors could invite others for review (i.e. not only committers) - Apache has a Jenkins instance to run CI checks on its projects (Ambari sample: https://builds.apache.org/job/Ambari-Github-PullRequest-Builder/). Since Knox already has some jobs here (for instance https://builds.apache.org/job/Knox-master-daily/) we might consider creating Knox's PR Builder here too (so that all of our CI related jobs would be in one place). If that happened we might get rid of the 'Knox-master-daily' job since it being executed after a commit is merged into master (AFAIK) which makes no sense if we only allow a commit to be merged if all tests were successfully passed already Cheers, Sandor On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jeffrey Rodriguez wrote: > +1 It is great that we are considering Pull request that would help to > increase community collaboration. > Jeffrey E Rodriguez > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Robert Levas > wrote: > > > +1. I think this is a great idea. > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM larry mccay wrote: > > > > > Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin! > > > > > > I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA. > > > I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that I am > > looking > > > for and then find no meaningful comments. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino > wrote: > > > > > > > +1, let's follow good models from the community, and save ourselves > > those > > > > headaches which can be avoided. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM Kevin Risden > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI checks by > > > > default > > > > > currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches > > > > > > > > > > If we go this route we should make sure we have the following in > > place: > > > > > > > > > >- PR Github Template with useful info > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository/ > > > > > - Livy has an example of this > > > > >- Ensure that PRs are automatically linked to JIRA > > > > > - Not currently done today and a pain since it should happen > > > > > automatically. > > > > > - Calcite has this. Might be a simple INFRA ticket > > > > >- Documentation for contributors/committers > > > > > - Committers - linked github/asf accounts, how to merge a PR > > > > > - Contributors what to expect/updated docs to move from patch > > -> > > > PR > > > > >- Ensure that only squash/rebase/merge commits are allowed > > > > > - Lot of nuance here and Calcite recently had INFRA disable > the > > > > > buttons for types that didn't fit their model > > > > >- Decided what to do with PR comments > > > > > - Some projects have PR comments go directly to JIRA > comments. > > > > > - Others have them go to worklog in JIRA. > > > > > - Others don't capture PR comments in JIRA > > > > > > > > > > So all in all in favor just need to make sure we have the plumbing > in > > > > > place. > > > > > Kevin Risden > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:13 PM Sandeep Moré > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I second Phil. Personally, I am more comfortable with the patches > > > > mostly > > > > > > because of their simplistic nature but do like PRs as they are > more > > > > > > community friendly (helps people review, comment, critique) and > > looks > > > > > like > > > > > > they have become OSS standard as Phil pointed out. > > > > > > So +1 from me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Sandeep > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 PM Phil Zampino > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the PR model, and it is familiar to many who contribute > to > > > OSS > > > > > > > projects. I suppose we could continue to support the patch > > attached > > > > to > > > > > a > > > > > > > Jira model, but we should encourage the PR model, IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
+1 It is great that we are considering Pull request that would help to increase community collaboration. Jeffrey E Rodriguez On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Robert Levas wrote: > +1. I think this is a great idea. > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM larry mccay wrote: > > > Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin! > > > > I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA. > > I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that I am > looking > > for and then find no meaningful comments. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino wrote: > > > > > +1, let's follow good models from the community, and save ourselves > those > > > headaches which can be avoided. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM Kevin Risden > wrote: > > > > > > > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI checks by > > > default > > > > currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches > > > > > > > > If we go this route we should make sure we have the following in > place: > > > > > > > >- PR Github Template with useful info > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository/ > > > > - Livy has an example of this > > > >- Ensure that PRs are automatically linked to JIRA > > > > - Not currently done today and a pain since it should happen > > > > automatically. > > > > - Calcite has this. Might be a simple INFRA ticket > > > >- Documentation for contributors/committers > > > > - Committers - linked github/asf accounts, how to merge a PR > > > > - Contributors what to expect/updated docs to move from patch > -> > > PR > > > >- Ensure that only squash/rebase/merge commits are allowed > > > > - Lot of nuance here and Calcite recently had INFRA disable the > > > > buttons for types that didn't fit their model > > > >- Decided what to do with PR comments > > > > - Some projects have PR comments go directly to JIRA comments. > > > > - Others have them go to worklog in JIRA. > > > > - Others don't capture PR comments in JIRA > > > > > > > > So all in all in favor just need to make sure we have the plumbing in > > > > place. > > > > Kevin Risden > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:13 PM Sandeep Moré > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I second Phil. Personally, I am more comfortable with the patches > > > mostly > > > > > because of their simplistic nature but do like PRs as they are more > > > > > community friendly (helps people review, comment, critique) and > looks > > > > like > > > > > they have become OSS standard as Phil pointed out. > > > > > So +1 from me. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Sandeep > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 PM Phil Zampino > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I like the PR model, and it is familiar to many who contribute to > > OSS > > > > > > projects. I suppose we could continue to support the patch > attached > > > to > > > > a > > > > > > Jira model, but we should encourage the PR model, IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM larry mccay > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > All - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There has been interest from the Knox community in support of > > Pull > > > > > > Requests > > > > > > > from github. > > > > > > > Our move to gitbox recently makes this easier to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are your thoughts on enabling PRs in general? > > > > > > > Should we support both patches in JIRA as well as github based > > PRs? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
+1. I think this is a great idea. On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM larry mccay wrote: > Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin! > > I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA. > I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that I am looking > for and then find no meaningful comments. > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino wrote: > > > +1, let's follow good models from the community, and save ourselves those > > headaches which can be avoided. > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM Kevin Risden wrote: > > > > > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI checks by > > default > > > currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches > > > > > > If we go this route we should make sure we have the following in place: > > > > > >- PR Github Template with useful info > > > - > > > > > > > > > https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository/ > > > - Livy has an example of this > > >- Ensure that PRs are automatically linked to JIRA > > > - Not currently done today and a pain since it should happen > > > automatically. > > > - Calcite has this. Might be a simple INFRA ticket > > >- Documentation for contributors/committers > > > - Committers - linked github/asf accounts, how to merge a PR > > > - Contributors what to expect/updated docs to move from patch -> > PR > > >- Ensure that only squash/rebase/merge commits are allowed > > > - Lot of nuance here and Calcite recently had INFRA disable the > > > buttons for types that didn't fit their model > > >- Decided what to do with PR comments > > > - Some projects have PR comments go directly to JIRA comments. > > > - Others have them go to worklog in JIRA. > > > - Others don't capture PR comments in JIRA > > > > > > So all in all in favor just need to make sure we have the plumbing in > > > place. > > > Kevin Risden > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:13 PM Sandeep Moré > > wrote: > > > > > > > I second Phil. Personally, I am more comfortable with the patches > > mostly > > > > because of their simplistic nature but do like PRs as they are more > > > > community friendly (helps people review, comment, critique) and looks > > > like > > > > they have become OSS standard as Phil pointed out. > > > > So +1 from me. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Sandeep > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 PM Phil Zampino > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I like the PR model, and it is familiar to many who contribute to > OSS > > > > > projects. I suppose we could continue to support the patch attached > > to > > > a > > > > > Jira model, but we should encourage the PR model, IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM larry mccay > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > All - > > > > > > > > > > > > There has been interest from the Knox community in support of > Pull > > > > > Requests > > > > > > from github. > > > > > > Our move to gitbox recently makes this easier to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > What are your thoughts on enabling PRs in general? > > > > > > Should we support both patches in JIRA as well as github based > PRs? > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > --larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
Great list of ideas/practices there, Kevin! I for one would want comments added as comments to JIRA. I hate coming across a JIRA that would address something that I am looking for and then find no meaningful comments. On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Phil Zampino wrote: > +1, let's follow good models from the community, and save ourselves those > headaches which can be avoided. > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM Kevin Risden wrote: > > > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI checks by > default > > currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches > > > > If we go this route we should make sure we have the following in place: > > > >- PR Github Template with useful info > > - > > > > > https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository/ > > - Livy has an example of this > >- Ensure that PRs are automatically linked to JIRA > > - Not currently done today and a pain since it should happen > > automatically. > > - Calcite has this. Might be a simple INFRA ticket > >- Documentation for contributors/committers > > - Committers - linked github/asf accounts, how to merge a PR > > - Contributors what to expect/updated docs to move from patch -> PR > >- Ensure that only squash/rebase/merge commits are allowed > > - Lot of nuance here and Calcite recently had INFRA disable the > > buttons for types that didn't fit their model > >- Decided what to do with PR comments > > - Some projects have PR comments go directly to JIRA comments. > > - Others have them go to worklog in JIRA. > > - Others don't capture PR comments in JIRA > > > > So all in all in favor just need to make sure we have the plumbing in > > place. > > Kevin Risden > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:13 PM Sandeep Moré > wrote: > > > > > I second Phil. Personally, I am more comfortable with the patches > mostly > > > because of their simplistic nature but do like PRs as they are more > > > community friendly (helps people review, comment, critique) and looks > > like > > > they have become OSS standard as Phil pointed out. > > > So +1 from me. > > > > > > Best, > > > Sandeep > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 PM Phil Zampino > wrote: > > > > > > > I like the PR model, and it is familiar to many who contribute to OSS > > > > projects. I suppose we could continue to support the patch attached > to > > a > > > > Jira model, but we should encourage the PR model, IMHO. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM larry mccay > wrote: > > > > > > > > > All - > > > > > > > > > > There has been interest from the Knox community in support of Pull > > > > Requests > > > > > from github. > > > > > Our move to gitbox recently makes this easier to do. > > > > > > > > > > What are your thoughts on enabling PRs in general? > > > > > Should we support both patches in JIRA as well as github based PRs? > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > --larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
+1, let's follow good models from the community, and save ourselves those headaches which can be avoided. On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:17 PM Kevin Risden wrote: > I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI checks by default > currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches > > If we go this route we should make sure we have the following in place: > >- PR Github Template with useful info > - > > https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository/ > - Livy has an example of this >- Ensure that PRs are automatically linked to JIRA > - Not currently done today and a pain since it should happen > automatically. > - Calcite has this. Might be a simple INFRA ticket >- Documentation for contributors/committers > - Committers - linked github/asf accounts, how to merge a PR > - Contributors what to expect/updated docs to move from patch -> PR >- Ensure that only squash/rebase/merge commits are allowed > - Lot of nuance here and Calcite recently had INFRA disable the > buttons for types that didn't fit their model >- Decided what to do with PR comments > - Some projects have PR comments go directly to JIRA comments. > - Others have them go to worklog in JIRA. > - Others don't capture PR comments in JIRA > > So all in all in favor just need to make sure we have the plumbing in > place. > Kevin Risden > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:13 PM Sandeep Moré wrote: > > > I second Phil. Personally, I am more comfortable with the patches mostly > > because of their simplistic nature but do like PRs as they are more > > community friendly (helps people review, comment, critique) and looks > like > > they have become OSS standard as Phil pointed out. > > So +1 from me. > > > > Best, > > Sandeep > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 PM Phil Zampino wrote: > > > > > I like the PR model, and it is familiar to many who contribute to OSS > > > projects. I suppose we could continue to support the patch attached to > a > > > Jira model, but we should encourage the PR model, IMHO. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM larry mccay wrote: > > > > > > > All - > > > > > > > > There has been interest from the Knox community in support of Pull > > > Requests > > > > from github. > > > > Our move to gitbox recently makes this easier to do. > > > > > > > > What are your thoughts on enabling PRs in general? > > > > Should we support both patches in JIRA as well as github based PRs? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > --larry > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
I think PRs are a good improvement since we get Travis CI checks by default currently. Something that we currently don't get with patches If we go this route we should make sure we have the following in place: - PR Github Template with useful info - https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository/ - Livy has an example of this - Ensure that PRs are automatically linked to JIRA - Not currently done today and a pain since it should happen automatically. - Calcite has this. Might be a simple INFRA ticket - Documentation for contributors/committers - Committers - linked github/asf accounts, how to merge a PR - Contributors what to expect/updated docs to move from patch -> PR - Ensure that only squash/rebase/merge commits are allowed - Lot of nuance here and Calcite recently had INFRA disable the buttons for types that didn't fit their model - Decided what to do with PR comments - Some projects have PR comments go directly to JIRA comments. - Others have them go to worklog in JIRA. - Others don't capture PR comments in JIRA So all in all in favor just need to make sure we have the plumbing in place. Kevin Risden On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:13 PM Sandeep Moré wrote: > I second Phil. Personally, I am more comfortable with the patches mostly > because of their simplistic nature but do like PRs as they are more > community friendly (helps people review, comment, critique) and looks like > they have become OSS standard as Phil pointed out. > So +1 from me. > > Best, > Sandeep > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 PM Phil Zampino wrote: > > > I like the PR model, and it is familiar to many who contribute to OSS > > projects. I suppose we could continue to support the patch attached to a > > Jira model, but we should encourage the PR model, IMHO. > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM larry mccay wrote: > > > > > All - > > > > > > There has been interest from the Knox community in support of Pull > > Requests > > > from github. > > > Our move to gitbox recently makes this easier to do. > > > > > > What are your thoughts on enabling PRs in general? > > > Should we support both patches in JIRA as well as github based PRs? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > --larry > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
I second Phil. Personally, I am more comfortable with the patches mostly because of their simplistic nature but do like PRs as they are more community friendly (helps people review, comment, critique) and looks like they have become OSS standard as Phil pointed out. So +1 from me. Best, Sandeep On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 PM Phil Zampino wrote: > I like the PR model, and it is familiar to many who contribute to OSS > projects. I suppose we could continue to support the patch attached to a > Jira model, but we should encourage the PR model, IMHO. > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM larry mccay wrote: > > > All - > > > > There has been interest from the Knox community in support of Pull > Requests > > from github. > > Our move to gitbox recently makes this easier to do. > > > > What are your thoughts on enabling PRs in general? > > Should we support both patches in JIRA as well as github based PRs? > > > > thanks, > > > > --larry > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
I like the PR model, and it is familiar to many who contribute to OSS projects. I suppose we could continue to support the patch attached to a Jira model, but we should encourage the PR model, IMHO. On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM larry mccay wrote: > All - > > There has been interest from the Knox community in support of Pull Requests > from github. > Our move to gitbox recently makes this easier to do. > > What are your thoughts on enabling PRs in general? > Should we support both patches in JIRA as well as github based PRs? > > thanks, > > --larry >
[DISCUSS] Enter the Pull Request?
All - There has been interest from the Knox community in support of Pull Requests from github. Our move to gitbox recently makes this easier to do. What are your thoughts on enabling PRs in general? Should we support both patches in JIRA as well as github based PRs? thanks, --larry
