accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Pull Request Guidelines
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2017 16:41:40 GMT
I agree with Christopher about avoiding strict guidelines for reviews but
having some loose guidelines/advice for reviewers.

One thing that I have found helpful is when reviewers communicate how
strongly they feel about a change:

- If the change is optional:       Could add a unit test for this class
- If the change is suggested:   A unit test should be added for this class
- If the change is required:       I am -1 on this PR until a unit test is
added for this class.

As a reviewer, I really like using "Could" before my PR comments.  It lets
me suggest whatever change I want without forcing the contributor to make
these changes if they disagree.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:00 PM Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> I'm not entirely sure what such specific guidelines hope to achieve. I'm in
> favor of having some "things to look for" guidelines, but I don't think
> strict guidelines are going to work, because it elevates rules over the
> human element. I don't think we can be too prescriptive about what things a
> contributor *should* do, or what a reviewer *should* check for, because
> everybody has unique volunteer time constraints, expertise, and passions.
>
> I'm also concerned about long-term maintenance of any such documentation,
> which seems likely to quickly get out of date as the community itself
> evolves, if we are too specific. Any such guidelines should be maintainable
> by being succinct, generic, and flexible. I'm thinking something like:
>
> 1. Follow the ASF Code of Conduct [link]
> 2. Ensure build passes (captures most checks; can rely on Travis CI)
> [suggested build command-line]
> 3. Check for style and formatting failures, or uncommitted changes from the
> build tooling after a build
> 5. Consider semver rules [link], especially when contributing to
> maintenance branches
> 6. Add tests when appropriate
> 7. Be willing to discuss performance impact, API design, style choices
>
> The key thing about contributing and reviewing is being willing to engage
> in polite discussion about any part of the contribution. Too much
> specificity will result in docs which don't apply to majority of
> circumstances, or docs which become out-of-date quickly, or docs which
> nobody reads because they are too complicated or long. The upfront costs of
> trying to make sure you comply with all possible guidelines may also be a
> deterrence from contributing. It's much easier to be willing to receive
> friendly feedback than it is to try to make sure you take care of any
> possible thing somebody might result in a change suggestion.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:25 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