accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Pull Request Guidelines
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2017 15:35:24 GMT
> 1. Adherence to code formatting rules (link to formatting rules)

Can we let checkstyle handle this instead of humans worrying about it?

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Marc P. <marc.parisi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dave,
>   I don't agree that stylistic changes are something to ignore. There may
> be cases where something is confusing to others and thus should be called
> out. This is difficult to blatantly avoid.
>
>   I can't agree with number two either since a PR can be a form of
> requirements elicitation and such there are cases in which there are new
> preconditions on the ticket. While your "not block of acceptance" may
> sometimes apply I don't think it goes to fitting a community of developers,
> where you can discuss your differences. In the case of number one and two
> developers reviewing will pick their battles and perhaps other reviewers
> can chime in on the importance of said feature. What is the purpose of
> limiting this discussion my claiming it cannot impact acceptance?
>
>   Bad code begets bad code and if a developer wants to take issue with
> code, they should be allowed to discuss this within the PR. Further,
> inconsistency begets inconsistency, so wild departures from the norm should
> be something a reviewer has the levity to discuss.
>
>   While discussion should lead to ticket creation we should avoid creating
> features that need a portion completed to be used in production
> successfully.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Dave Marion <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