Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-11-13 Thread Alexander Murmann
. From: Darrel Schneider Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 14:33 To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette +1 for adding a CONTRIBUTING.MD file From: Sarah Abbey Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 2:07 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-29 Thread Darrel Schneider
+1 for adding a CONTRIBUTING.MD file From: Sarah Abbey Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 2:07 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette Regarding knowing who to tag in a PR, because I am working on a very specific aspect of Geode

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-29 Thread Sarah Abbey
Kohlmeyer Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 5:50 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette So far I would like to thank everyone for their thoughts and input. @Dave, I would love to find a solution to the partial sign-off. I’ve been experimenting with the “Projects” s

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-29 Thread Donal Evans
y, October 28, 2020 5:50 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette So far I would like to thank everyone for their thoughts and input. @Dave, I would love to find a solution to the partial sign-off. I’ve been experimenting with the “Projects” setting. I wonder if we c

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-29 Thread Alberto Gomez
o: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette So far I would like to thank everyone for their thoughts and input. @Dave, I would love to find a solution to the partial sign-off. I’ve been experimenting with the “Projects” setting. I wonder if we cannot have a “Documentation Check” p

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-29 Thread Bruce Schuchardt
ave Barnes Date: Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 4:20 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette Here's a common use case that we should address: A single PR may require two reviews, one for code and another for docs, before it can be said to be full

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
or anyone who is not a committer) to comment here. Is there anything in particular that attracts or repulses you when it comes to contributing to the project. --Udo From: Dave Barnes Date: Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 4:20 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette Here's

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Dave Barnes
iewers. > > Full documentation here< > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/git+-+.asf.yaml+features#git.asf.yamlfeatures-BranchProtection > > > > > > From: Bruce Schuchardt > Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 8:10 AM > To: dev@geode.apache.org >

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Kirk Lund
How about we make this a recommendation rather than a rule? I'd like to also recommend that contributors consider prefixing the PR title with "DRAFT: " while it is in draft. This just makes it easier to see at a glance that it's a draft. When I change the PR to "ready for review" I edit the title

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Bruce Schuchardt
Hi Owen - I wasn't aware that non-committers can't add reviewers to their PRs but I don't see how using DRAFT mode helps with that. The idea that I can't request a review until the commit checks all pass seems absurd to me. On 10/28/20, 9:15 AM, "Owen Nichols" wrote: Hey Bruce, please

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Owen Nichols
For the narrow goal of making it easier for non-committers to get reviewers for their PRs, we could also consider defining a "reviewers wanted" label. However it might not be very obvious to new committers that they need to click the gear to look for that label, unless we also update the PR

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Anthony Baker
I think exploring these additions to PR reviews would be pretty helpful. It’s worth spending the extra time to get a PR right before merging. Anthony > On Oct 28, 2020, at 8:40 AM, Robert Houghton wrote: > > There are some pieces of Apache infrastructure we can control without needing >

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Owen Nichols
Hey Bruce, please consider that non-committers are not permitted to add reviewers themselves, so a consistent convention to indicate when a PR has moved from work-in-progress to ready-for-review will help alert the community when to assign reviewers. Currently, I see countless creative

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Robert Houghton
he.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette -1 While I often use the Draft option I don't see why we want to add even more rules about how we use github. I think it's enough to put in a PR and then add reviewers when you're ready for comments. Getting the stink-eye for putting up a non-Draft PR i

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Bruce Schuchardt
-1 While I often use the Draft option I don't see why we want to add even more rules about how we use github. I think it's enough to put in a PR and then add reviewers when you're ready for comments. Getting the stink-eye for putting up a non-Draft PR is just going to make it more difficult

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Blake Bender
Oops, sorry for the confusion! I’ve been working through Mario’s PRs a lot lately. From: Alberto Gomez Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 7:10 AM To: "dev@geode.apache.org" , Blake Bender Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette +1 to draft PRs. By the way @Blake Bender&

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Alberto Gomez
+1 to draft PRs. By the way @Blake Bender<mailto:bbl...@vmware.com>, it's me the one having the draft PR for GEODE-8318. Alberto G. From: Blake Bender Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:28 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquet

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Blake Bender
or sharing that. --Udo From: Darrel Schneider Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 3:32 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette +1 to your idea of using "draft" mode until things are green. Something to be aware of is that if your pr

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-28 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
Great information Darrel. Thank you for sharing that. --Udo From: Darrel Schneider Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 3:32 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette +1 to your idea of using "draft" mode until things are green. Something to be aware of is th

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-27 Thread Darrel Schneider
ly running and it is in draft mode then try merging develop to your pr branch and resolve the conflicts. From: Owen Nichols Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 6:03 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette +1 for using GitHub's draft status t

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-27 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
Great ideas Owen. I do apologize for the BIG lump of text… stupid formatting of lack thereof… --Udo From: Owen Nichols Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 12:03 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette +1 for using GitHub's draft status to indicate work-in-progress

Re: PR process and etiquette

2020-10-27 Thread Owen Nichols
+1 for using GitHub's draft status to indicate work-in-progress. Many great suggestions here, however I generally prefer that we don't squash commits at any point except the final Squash and Merge to develop. I find it insightful to see how the work evolved. I also find that review comments

PR process and etiquette

2020-10-27 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
Dear Apache Geode Devs, It is really great going through all the PRs that been submitted. As Josh Long is known to say: "I work for PRs". Whilst going through some of the PRs I do see that there are many PRs that have multiple commits against the PR. I know that the PR submission framework kicks