arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Code review tools for Arrow patches
Date Sat, 11 Jun 2016 19:56:48 GMT
Is the challenge with jenkins + gerrit a time constraint or a systems
constraint? If the former, we can probably have other people collaborate to
accomplish this. (If I understand what you said.)


On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not sure how to do this while continuing to use Travis CI. I am
> not able to set up a new CI environment (e.g. Jenkins + gerrit a la
> Kudu) right now.
>
> I am having a hard time keeping track of the state of code reviews, so
> I've proposed this triage solution (which will involve an extra force
> push to get a green build) to assist with large reviews until we
> achieve a more sustainable / streamlined solution (Jenkins + gerrit
> replication, maybe someday).
>
> - Wes
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm +1 if we remove step 4 and integrate testing into gerrit instead
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> hi folks,
> >>
> >> Following up on this. My suggestion for a workflow to help with large
> >> code reviews for Arrow is:
> >>
> >> 1) We set up an Arrow project on gerrit.cloudera.org. I'm hoping we
> >> see gerrit.apache.org someday.
> >>
> >> 2) For reviews needing more careful scrutiny, code reviewer can
> >> request to conduct the CR on Gerrit
> >>
> >> 3) Contributor will push change sets to Gerrit
> >>
> >> 4) [The slightly awkward part] In parallel, contributor will open a PR
> >> on GitHub for purposes of trigging Travis CI verification
> >>
> >> 5) Arrow committer may cherry-pick verified commits to master and push
> >> to ASF git repo
> >>
> >> My understanding (someone more experienced should chime in) is that
> >> Gerrit reviews are all made relative to the parent commit for a
> >> particular change set. Thus, we may not need to worry (for now) about
> >> synchronization issues between Gerrit and GitHub / ASF git.
> >>
> >> Does this make sense? Any other ideas / thoughts welcome
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Wes
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Hanifi GUNES <hanifigunes@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I worked with Gerrit and GH both. My personal preference would be in
> >> favor
> >> > of Gerrit because of its power user ready-ness and tight integration
> with
> >> > git + git cli. Afaics there are legitimate concerns around possible
> >> > trickiness of novice users' interaction with Gerrit. Not sure if this
> was
> >> > mentioned above but there seems a Gerrit + GH plugin that mirrors GH
> >> > pull-requests to Gerrit changes. Never used it but still this may be
> of
> >> > help.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1: https://gerrit.googlesource.com/plugins/github/+/master/README.md
> >> >
> >> > 2016-05-13 8:47 GMT-07:00 Jason Altekruse <jason@dremio.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> If everyone else would prefer Gerrit, I would be okay with using it
> >> >> exclusively to simplify things. It does have several nice features
> >> beyond
> >> >> reviewboard as it manages its own git repository, rather than just
> patch
> >> >> files.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jason Altekruse
> >> >> Software Engineer at Dremio
> >> >> Apache Drill Committer
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Apparently it is possible, but quite a lot of work:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://github.com/andygrunwald/gotrap
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The ideal thing, it would seem, would be to have the Gerrit code
> >> >> > reviews with automatic replication of updated patch sets to a
pull
> >> >> > request (i.e. each new patch set force pushes the branch). I don't
> >> >> > think we're going to get that, so I'm not sure how to proceed.
The
> >> >> > Kudu team uses Gerrit + Jenkins trigger (e.g. see it in action
here
> >> >> > http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/2992/)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - Wes
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Micah Kornfield <
> >> emkornfield@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > Does gerrit work well with TravisCI, or will we need to
> >> develop/setup
> >> >> > > another continuous integration solution?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Robinson
> >> >> > > <danrobinson010@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >> Admittedly, coming from the complete opposite end of
the
> >> commit-size
> >> >> > spectrum, the JIRA issue + GitHub pull request workflow already
> feels
> >> a
> >> >> > little frictional for simple bugfixes and additions, so I was
wary
> of
> >> >> > Gerrit. But it actually looks pretty well-suited to small commits.
> >> >> > >> One advantage I'd see to different platforms, though,
would be
> the
> >> >> > potential for JIRA integration. GitHub seems to have a more
> built-in
> >> >> > solution for this, if it's something you could foresee setting
up.
> But
> >> >> > there seem to be ways to do it with Gerrit too.
> >> >> > >> Clearly having an option to use GitHub pull requests
lowers the
> >> >> > barriers to entry for contributors, but I understand easy pull
> >> requests
> >> >> are
> >> >> > a double-edged sword for maintainers!
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>     _____________________________
> >> >> > >> From: Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com>
> >> >> > >> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:46 AM
> >> >> > >> Subject: Re: Code review tools for Arrow patches
> >> >> > >> To:  <dev@arrow.apache.org>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> I'm also on board with this if it doesn't deter new contributors
> >> (it's
> >> >> > >> a bit of additional process over GitHub but overall not
too
> hard to
> >> >> > >> learn).
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@apache.org
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > >>> I dont know about the other pmc members and committers
but I
> >> prefer
> >> >> > just
> >> >> > >>> making Gerrit the only way to submit patches rather
than one of
> >> many.
> >> >> > It
> >> >> > >>> seems to work well for Asterix and Kudu.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>

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