Re: Low hanging fruit crew

Thanks Jeremy. To come back to the original idea, for an LHF crew how about as these: - a weekly(?) list of LHF tickets sent to dev list - sharing fliters of the above (can we put these on the how to contribute page?) - adopt Jeff B.'s idea of tagging LHF your own self as part of our

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

It sounds like everyone is on the same page - there won’t be a rubber stamp. It’s just to have a concerted effort to help these tickets move along as they’re often the first experience that contributors have with the project. I’m sure many of you know of the ‘lhf' tag that’s out there with an

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

Tagging tickets as LHF is a great idea. There's plenty of people that would love to set up a JIRA dashboard saved search / nightly email for LHF tickets. On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:34 PM Jeff Beck wrote: > Would it make sense to allow people submitting the patch to flag

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

Would it make sense to allow people submitting the patch to flag things as LHF or small tasks? If it doesn't look like it is simple enough the team could remove the label but it may help get feedback to patches more quickly, even something saying accepted for review would be nice. Personally if a

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

I realize that test passing a small tests and trivial reviews will not catch all issues. I am not attempting to trivialize the review process. Both deep and shallow bugs exist. The deep bugs, I am not convinced that even an expert looking at the contribution for N days can account for a majority

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

Let’s not get too far in the theoretical weeds. The email thread really focused on low hanging tickets – tickets that need review, but definitely not 8099 level reviews: 1) There’s a lot of low hanging tickets that would benefit from outside contributors as their first-patch in Cassandra (like

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

And just to be clear, I think everyone would welcome more testing for both regressions of new code correctness. I think everyone would appreciate the time savings around more automation. That should give more time for a thoughtful review - which is likely what new contributors really need to

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

I specifically used the phrase "problems that the test would not" to show I am talking about more than mechanical correctness. Even if the tests are perfect (and as Jeremiah points out, how will you know that without reading the code?), you can still pass tests with bad code. And is expecting

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

Unless the reviewer reviews the for content, then you don’t know if they do or not. -Jeremiah > On Oct 19, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > > Shouldn't the tests test the code for correctness? > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:34 AM Jonathan Ellis

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

Shouldn't the tests test the code for correctness? On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:34 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Benjamin Lerer < > benjamin.le...@datastax.com > > wrote: > > > Having the test passing does not mean that a patch is fine. Which is why

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > Having the test passing does not mean that a patch is fine. Which is why we > have a review check list. > I never put a patch available without having the tests passing but most of > my patches never pass on

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

Having the test passing does not mean that a patch is fine. Which is why we have a review check list. I never put a patch available without having the tests passing but most of my patches never pass on the first try. We always make mistakes no matter how hard we try. The reviewer job is to catch

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

Yes. The LHFC crew should always pay it forward. Not many of us have a super computer to run all the tests, but for things that are out there marked patch_available apply it to see that it applies clean, if it includes a test run that test (and possibly some related ones in the file/folder etc for

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

On 19 October 2016 at 05:30, Nate McCall wrote: > if you are offering up resources for review and test coverage, > there is work out there. Most immediately in the department of reviews > for "Patch Available." > We can certainly put some minds to this. There are a few of us

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

That's a good idea, Ed, thanks for bringing this up. Kurt, if you are offering up resources for review and test coverage, there is work out there. Most immediately in the department of reviews for "Patch Available." While not quite low-hanging fruit, it's helpful to have non-committers look

Re: Low hanging fruit crew

So there are a bunch of us at Instaclustr looking into contributing to the project on a more frequent basis. We'd definitely be interested in some kind of LHF crew under whom our new "contributors" could make tracks on becoming main committers, while having some close by colleagues who can help

Low hanging fruit crew

, but the pathway to removing this burden is promoting contributors to committers. My suggestion: Assemble a low-hanging-fruit-crew. This crew would be armed general support for small commits, logging, metrics, test coverage, things static analysis reveals etc. They would have a reasonable goal like