ambari-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aravindan Vijayan <avija...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Code Review groups
Date Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:06:19 GMT
+1

Nice suggestion Alejandro!
 
-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Aravindan Vijayan








On 6/2/16, 11:31 PM, "Gautam Borad" <gborad@gmail.com> wrote:

>+1 for Alejandro's suggestion for review groups.
>
>My +1 for github-based pull request process. Its way easy/simpler than
>Review board and works well with a git-based workflow.
>Also, we can expect new features every
><https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates> now
><https://github.com/blog/2119-add-reactions-to-pull-requests-issues-and-comments>
>and then <https://github.com/blog/2123-more-code-review-tools>!
>
>On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As I'm just newbie contributors, I'm happy to respect the Ambari project
>> policy, but if we would want to consider to revisit review process, I'd +1
>> on Mithun.
>> I just submitted two patches (may submit some more), and triggering Jenkins
>> and submitting patch to review system was hurdle so that I was struggling
>> several hours for that.
>> And we can see the pull requests on Github mirror though project doesn't
>> take pull request. It's well-known and easy way for open source
>> contributors to participate.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>
>> 2016년 6월 3일 (금) 오전 10:58, Mithun Mathew <mithmatt@gmail.com>님이
작성:
>>
>> > Just putting some thoughts in regarding the review board model:
>> > Every time (I mean EVERY TIME!), I have to copy a bunch of things that I
>> > listed in the JIRA (summary, description, branch, JIRA no, group, and
>> > upload the same patch) to the review board - to me it is quite a lot of
>> > redundant work.
>> >
>> > The Github pull request model with CI kicking off as soon as pull request
>> > is made is ideal and I consider this to be more efficient.
>> >
>> > Anyone else have similar thoughts?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Alejandro Fernandez <
>> > afernandez@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thank you for the feedback. I created
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AMBARI/Code+Review+Guidelines
>> > > as a starting point.
>> > > I'm also looking into our workflow to see the pros/cons of switching to
>> > > github + pull request model, or another code review provider with more
>> > > advanced features.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Alejandro
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 6/2/16, 2:02 PM, "Sumit Mohanty" <smohanty@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >We can look into the already available component names in the JIRA
for
>> > > >the initial list.
>> > > >We should not create fine-grained groups and aim to have at least 3-5
>> > > >devs (more is better) in a single component/area.
>> > > >
>> > > >Possible list:
>> > > >ambari-web
>> > > >ambari-views
>> > > >ambari-server
>> > > >ambari-agent
>> > > >stacks-framework/extensibility
>> > > >stack-definitions (this could break into separate services)
>> > > >blueprints
>> > > >alerts/metrics
>> > > >logsearch
>> > > >security/kerberos/ldap
>> > > >stack-upgrade/RU/EU
>> > > >
>> > > >Once the list is final lets make sure that the available list of
>> > > >components in the JIRA matches this list.
>> > > >
>> > > >This is probably also a good opportunity to see if there are better
>> > > >alternatives to reviews.apache.org.
>> > > >
>> > > >regards
>> > > >Sumit
>> > > >________________________________________
>> > > >From: Jayush Luniya <jluniya@hortonworks.com>
>> > > >Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:47 PM
>> > > >To: dev@ambari.apache.org
>> > > >Subject: Re: Code Review groups
>> > > >
>> > > >+1 on this
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >On 6/2/16, 1:44 PM, "Swapan Shridhar" <sshridhar@hortonworks.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>+1. Makes sense.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Thanks.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Regards,
>> > > >>Swapan.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>On 6/2/16, 1:27 PM, "Robert Levas" <rlevas@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>Alejandro, I agree.  I just hope we (as a group) can manage
the wiki
>> > > >>>page without letting it get too stale over time.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>+1
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Rob
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>On 6/2/16, 12:55 PM, "Alejandro Fernandez" <
>> > afernandez@hortonworks.com>
>> > > >>>wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>>Hi committers and contributors,
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>I'm sure most of you have ran into this before; whenever
I submit a
>> > > >>>>code review I'm always curious to find out which reviewers
I should
>> > > >>>>include that are knowledgeable in that area.
>> > > >>>>So I'll typically run git blame to find the last 2-3 people
that
>> > worked
>> > > >>>>on those files, which takes time and may include reviewers
no
>> longer
>> > > >>>>interested in that code area or miss reviewers that are
interested.
>> > > >>>>I want to propose a wiki where developers sign up to be
reviewers
>> > for a
>> > > >>>>particular section, could be a feature, directory, etc.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>Thoughts?
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>This allows developers to opt-in to areas of interest (even
outside
>> > of
>> > > >>>>their current expertise), should produce better code reviews,
and
>> > make
>> > > >>>>it easier for new contributors to find the right people.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>Thank you,
>> > > >>>>Alejandro Fernandez
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *Mithun Mathew* (Matt)
>> >
>> >    - www.linkedin.com/in/mithunmatt/
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Regards,
>Gautam.
Mime
View raw message