ambari-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Attila Doroszlai <adorosz...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Future code review and commit process
Date Mon, 08 Jan 2018 22:00:12 GMT
Is there a policy for pending review requests (ie. the ones already open at https://reviews.apache.org/groups/Ambari/
)?  Should we open a PR for each, or should they be wrapped up on Review Board, or is it up
to us?

Thanks.

-Attila

From: Vivek Ratnavel <vivekratnavel@apache.org<mailto:vivekratnavel@apache.org>>
Reply-To: "dev@ambari.apache.org<mailto:dev@ambari.apache.org>" <dev@ambari.apache.org<mailto:dev@ambari.apache.org>>
Date: Friday, January 5, 2018 at 12:16 AM
To: "dev@ambari.apache.org<mailto:dev@ambari.apache.org>" <dev@ambari.apache.org<mailto:dev@ambari.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Future code review and commit process

Further clarifications:

- Creating the fork
https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/

- Creating a branch for every commit (and creating the pull request)
https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-from-a-fork/

- How to keep your fork in-sync with the upstream repository

https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/

- How long-lived Apache feature branches will work in this model. In this case, we'd still
need a branch off of the feature branch for every commit from the fork.

In this workflow, a feature branch is no different than any other branch. If you want a commit
to land in a branch, then you create a new branch based off that branch. You create multiple
branches if you want your commits to land in multiple branches. It might sound like a daunting
task initially, but believe me, its very easy and straightforward to create a branch and open
pull requests for review. And once a pull request is opened, you can make changes by simply
pushing commits to the same branch.

- How to merge long-lived feature branches into Apache

Feature branches or any other branch could be merged with trunk or any branch by creating
a new pull request. A new pull request could be opened by selecting two branches - a base
branch and a head branch. In this case, if you want to merge a feature branch with trunk,
then you select feature branch as base branch and trunk as head branch.

I have attached a screen-shot for reference.

[cid:ii_jc13wnyl0_160c3724ae47072e]


I agree with you on creating a wiki page to cover all the scenarios.

​
Thanks,
Vivek Ratnavel



On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Jonathan Hurley <jhurley@hortonworks.com<mailto:jhurley@hortonworks.com>>
wrote:
Thanks for the clarifications. This sounds like the "Forking Workflow" as opposed to the "Feature
Branch Workflow". I'm fine with that since it lets non-commiters help.

 We should try to capture all of these scenarios in a wiki page which we can then all agree
upon. Things which we need to cover are:

- Creating the fork
- Creating a branch for every commit (and creating the pull request)
- How to keep your fork in-sync with the upstream repository
- How long-lived Apache feature branches will work in this model. In this case, we'd still
need a branch off of the feature branch for every commit from the fork.
- How to merge long-lived feature branches into Apache

A few of the items above haven't been specified yet - like keeping the forked repo in sync
and how to manage long-lived feature branches in Apache.

I still do not think we need [component-1][component-2] in the commit message. We can use
the fields in Apache Jira for this. It makes our commit messages long, hard to read, and ugly.

> On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:57 PM, Vivek Ratnavel <vivekratnavel@apache.org<mailto:vivekratnavel@apache.org>>
wrote:
>
> Let me clarify a few things here.
>
>
>   - Before opening any pull requests, one needs to fork
>   https://github.com/apache/ambari. This is a one time process.
>   - Before working on any JIRA, lets say AMBARI-12345, one needs to create
>   a branch from their own fork. Everyone can have their own naming
>   conventions to name this branch since this is not going to affect the
>   public repository in any way.
>   - To answer Nate's question, if a JIRA has to be committed to branch-2.6
>   and trunk, one needs to create two branches from their own fork - a branch
>   based on branch-2.6 and another branch based on trunk. Let's name them
>   AMBARI-12345-branch-2.6 and AMBARI-12345-trunk. Again this could be
>   anything as long as you can differentiate.
>   - After committing patches to both the newly created branches, you need
>   to open two pull requests against two public branches - branch2.6 and
>   trunk. This link should help -
>   https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-from-a-fork/
>   - If there is no conflict, github offers "squash and merge" option which
>   will let you remove unnecessary commit messages and merge any number of
>   commits as one commit. For more info -
>   https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-merges
>
> Hope this clarifies the flow.
>
> To clarify Jonathan's suggestion
>
> * I do not think that adding a [COMPONENT] tag is useful. Many commits span
> ambari-server and ambari-agent, and a good number also span ambari-web and
> ambari-server. I also think that we should have the title of the JIra match
> the commit exactly as we do today.
>
> If a commit spans multiple components, lets say ambari-server and
> ambari-web, the PR title should be [AMBARI-12345][ambari-server][ambari-web]
> Title. This is especially useful to categorize the open pull requests based
> on their components, so that other folks working in those components can
> work on clearing those open pull requests.
>
> Please let me know if you need more clarification on anything discussed
> here.
>
> Thanks,
> Vivek Ratnavel
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Nate Cole <ncole@hortonworks.com<mailto:ncole@hortonworks.com>>
wrote:
>
>> Please also clarify the following scenario:
>>
>> I’m working on a fix for branch-2.6, and when I’m done, I need to merge to
>> trunk.
>>
>> What is the flow?
>> - Create a fork
>> - Commit to branch-2.6 (on my fork)
>> - Commit to trunk (on my fork)
>> - Create pull request to bring changes to both branches?
>> Or
>> - Create a fork
>> - Commit to branch-2.6 (on my fork)
>> - Create pull request
>> - Commit to trunk (on my fork)
>> - Create pull request
>>
>> This is exposing my git n00bness
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/18, 11:32 AM, "Attila Doroszlai" <adoroszlai@hortonworks.com<mailto:adoroszlai@hortonworks.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *   Since this new flow model requires a branch for a commit, we
>> should enforce a naming strategy. These short-lived feature branches for
>> commits must be easy to find and remove. We should also make the community
>> aware that once you have had your pull request merged, you should get rid
>> of your branch. As for branch naming conventions, I haven't thought through
>> it very much, but perhaps simply the name of the associated JIRA, such as
>> AMBARI-12345.
>>
>>    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the branch to be merged should be created
>> in your own fork, not in the apache/ambari repo.  Otherwise non-committers
>> would not be able to create pull requests.  I think this eliminates the
>> need to coordinate branch naming, although some convention or pattern would
>> be helpful anyway.
>>
>>    -Attila
>>
>>
>>


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