accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Marion <dlmar...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Pull Request Guidelines
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:54:17 GMT
I have used Hadoop's documentation on this subject for submitting patches. I'm not suggesting
that we go to this level of detail, but as a new contributor I know how to set up my IDE,
what commands to run to create my patch, and I know the items that are going to be checked
at the start.


[1] https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute

[2] https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/CodeReviewChecklist


> 
>     On June 5, 2017 at 1:19 PM Mike Miller <michaelpmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>     I could be wrong, but it sounds like there are two different
>     perspectives being discussed here and it may be helpful to try and
>     separate the two. On one hand there are discussions of guidelines for
>     reviewers (Dave's initial list, Keith's ideas) to follow and on the
>     other hand, suggestions for contributors, which Christopher's list
>     sounds more geared towards. Since everyone on this list has to wear
>     both hats, I think each different point of view could benefit from
>     some loose guidelines.
> 
>     For example, General Pull Request Guidelines for the Accumulo community:
>     When submitting a PR... please run these commands [...] before
>     submitting to ensure code adheres to checkstyle and passes findbugs,
>     etc
>     When reviewing a PR... ensure dialog portrays how strongly the
>     reviewer feels about the comment [Could = optional suggestion, Should
>     = would be helpful but not blocking, Must = required]
> 
>     On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Dave Marion <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>         > > 
> >         I think things can be improved when it comes to handling pull requests.
The point of this thread was to try and come up with something to set expectations for the
contributor. I figured the discussion would lead to the modification of the existing example
or to a new example. Christopher provided a different example, but most of the feedback seemed
to indicate that this was not warranted. I'm not sure what else I can say on the matter. If
the majority thinks that its not a problem, then its not a problem.
> > 
> >             > > > 
> > >             On June 5, 2017 at 12:39 PM Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > 
> > >             Perhaps this discussion would be better served if you gave some
concrete
> > >             suggestions on how you think things can/should be improved.
> > > 
> > >             e.g. Mike's suggestion of using the maven-checkstyle-plugin earlier,
why
> > >             not focus on that? Does this (still) work with the build? If so,
how do
> > >             we get that run automagically via travis or jenkins?
> > > 
> > >             To me, it seems like you either wanted to throw some shade or you
are
> > >             genuinely concerned about a problem that others are not (yet?)
concerned
> > >             about. I doubt re-focusing contribution processes for efficiency
would
> > >             be met with disapproval.
> > > 
> > >             On 6/5/17 12:32 PM, Dave Marion wrote:
> > > 
> > >                 > > > > 
> > > >                 The main entrance to the community for new contributors
is through pull requests. I have seen PR's approved in an inconsistent manner. My intent was
to make known the expectations for new contributions so that newcomers don't get discouraged
by the amount of feedback and/or changes requested while providing some guidelines to make
it more consistent. It seems that there is not a desire to do this for various reasons. That's
fine by me and I'm willing to drop the discussion here.
> > > > 
> > > >                     > > > > > 
> > > > >                     On June 5, 2017 at 12:14 PM "Marc P." <marc.parisi@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >                     Turner and Tubbs,
> > > > >                     You both piqued my interest and I agree. There's
something important in what both said regarding the discussion and importance of a particular
change. Style changes most likely aren't deal breakers unless it is terribly confusing, but
I would leave that up to the reviewer and developer to discuss.
> > > > > 
> > > > >                     Dave,
> > > > >                     I'm sure your intent is good and you goal isn't
the handcuff reviewers. Is your concern over a stalemate on something such as a code style?
Would a discussion not be the remedy for this?
> > > > > 
> > > > >                     On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Keith Turner
<keith@deenlo.com mailto:keith@deenlo.com > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >                         > > > > > > 
> > > > > >                             > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >                             Sometimes I use review comments
to just ask questions about things I
> > > > > > >                             don't understand. Sometimes
when looking at a code review, I have a
> > > > > > >                             thought about the change that
I know is a subjective opinion. In this
> > > > > > >                             case I want to share my thought,
in case they find it useful.
> > > > > > >                             However, I don't care if a
change is made or not. Sometimes I think a
> > > > > > >                             change must be made. I try
to communicate my intentions, but its
> > > > > > >                             wordy, slow, and I don't think
I always succeed.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                         > > > > > > 
> > > > > >                         Given there are so many ways the comments
on a review can be used, I
> > > > > >                         think it can be difficult to quickly
know the intentions of the
> > > > > >                         reviewer. I liked review board's issues,
I think they helped with
> > > > > >                         this problem. A reviewer could make
comments and issues. The issues
> > > > > >                         made it clear what the reviewer thought
must be done vs discussion.
> > > > > >                         Issues made reviews more efficient by
making the intentions clear AND
> > > > > >                         separating important concerns from lots
of discussion.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >                         When I submit a PR and it has lots of
comments, towards the end I go
> > > > > >                         back and look through all of the comments
to make sure I didn't miss
> > > > > >                         anything important. Its annoying to
have to do this. Is there
> > > > > >                         anything we could do in GH to replicate
this and help separate the
> > > > > >                         signal from the noise?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >                         On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Dave
Marion <dlmarion@comcast.net mailto:dlmarion@comcast.net > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >                             > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >                             I propose that we define a
set of guidelines to use when reviewing pull requests. In doing so, contributors will be able
to determine potential issues in their code possibly reducing the number of changes that occur
before acceptance. Here's an example to start the discussion:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                             Items a reviewer should look
for:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                                1. Adherence to code formatting
rules (link to formatting rules)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                                2. Unit tests required
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                                3. Threading issues
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                                4. Performance implications
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                             Items that should not block
acceptance:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                                1. Stylistic changes that
have no performance benefit
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                                2. Addition of features
outside the scope of the ticket (moving the goal post, discussion should lead to ticket creation)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                         > > > > > > 
> > > > > >                         >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >                     > > > > > 
> > > > >                 > > > > 
> > > >             > > > 
> > >         > > 
> >     > 

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message