Re: [DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

Great, let's document that in the feature branch section of the contribution guide: http://beam.incubator.apache.org/contribute/contribution-guide/#feature-branches Anyone want to take that? On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > In the spirit of

Re: [DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

In the spirit of explicitly summarizing and concluding threads on list: I think we have affirmative consensus to go for it when a downstream integration is completely conflict-free and fixup-free. On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:43 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > My concern

Re: [DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

My concern was mostly about what to do in the face of conflicts, but it sounds like the consensus is that for a clean merge, with no conflicts or test breakage (or other concerns) a committer is free to push without any oversight which is fine by me. [If/when the Mergbot comes into action, and

Re: [DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

+1 For a merge from master to the feature branch that does not require extra changes, RTC does not add value. It actually delays and burns reviewer time (even mechanics need some) that "real" PRs could benefit from. If adjustments are needed, then the regular process kicks in. Thanks, Thomas

Re: [DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

I generally agree with Kenneth. While working on the SparkRunnerV2 branch, it was a pain - i avoided frequent merges to avoid trivial PRs, but it cost me with very large and non-trivial merges later. I think that frequent merges for feature-branches should most of the time be trivial (no

Re: [DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

Agree. When possible it would be great to have the branch merged on master quickly, even when it's not fully ready. It would give more visibility to potential contributors. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 25, 2016, 23:34, at 23:34, Kenneth Knowles wrote: >Hi all, > >While

Re: [DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

I like this idea as a maintainer for gearpump-runner branch. Usually the merge is to keep the feature branch updated to the latest API changes on master. Sorry that I haven't made merge PR as frequent as possible which would bring in a lot of changes each time and make it harder for others to

[DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

Hi all, While collaborating on the apex-runner branch, the issue of how best to continuously merge master into the feature branch came up. IMO it differs somewhat from normal commits in two notable ways: 1. Modulo fix-ups, it is actually not adding any new code to the overall codebase, so