cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Commit to master through PR only
Date Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:13:07 GMT
Wilder, you are being to friendly IMHO here. I would actually -1 a PR
that contains a commit that tries to do more then one thing. It is
obfuscating and makes it harder to discuss implementations and fixes.

<psuedo-quote>in commit abcdef, in the part that fixes the NPE related
to the network implementation of sdn-xyz in hypervisor-123, a problem
arises that had not been there if in commit fedcba for the TO of the
vm we had... </psuedo-quote>

such argumentations should be "commit abcdef wasn't necessary, just
revert commit fedcba".

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Wilder Rodrigues
<WRodrigues@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> Sateesh and Rajesh,
>
> It seems you were the only guys who +1 the squash idea. Could you please share with us
what benefits you think squashing commits will bring?
>
> I wil give you the simplest example that could come to my mind to encourage no squash:
>
> * I open a Java class with 5 thousand lines. The first thing I do is format the code
and commit the change.
> * I go back to the class and apply the fix, let’s say, a 3 lines change, then I commit
the change again.
>
> Now, think about the PR. It will contain 2 commits: 1 with the formatting changes only;
and a second commit with 3 lines change.
>
> Would you like to see it quashed and all messed up? It would be very difficult to review.
>
> That’s just a simple example.
>
> Cheers,
> Wilder
>
>> On 02 Jul 2015, at 07:22, Rajesh Battala <rajesh.battala@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for squashing commit
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Burwell [mailto:john.burwell@shapeblue.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 12:14 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commit to master through PR only
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I think we should stick to 2 votes per PR.  Defining types of PRs becomes difficult
bordering on the arbitrary — adding a process complexity and the potential to start debating
if a particular PR is one type or another.
>>
>> I agree regarding the fast forward, and feel that all PRs should squashed down to
one commit.  Ultimately, intermediate commits that seem informative in a feature branch become
noise in a history as large as CloudStack’s.
>>
>> To enforce the policy and ensure that PRs are merged in an orderly and correct manner
(i.e. one at time), I think we should consider adopting a tool such as bors [1] to verify
that the merge passes all tests and then performs the merge. It would some minor modification
to require two votes, but I doubt that would take much effort to implement.  If there is interest,
I would happy to make those changes for the project.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/graydon/bors
>>
>> ---
>> John Burwell (@john_burwell)
>> VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
>> (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
>> http://www.shapeblue.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> On 25-Jun-2015, at 4:38 pm, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A few of us are in Amsterdam at DevOps days. We are chatting about release
management procedure.
>>>> Remi is working on a set of principles that he will put on the wiki to start
a [DISCUSS].
>>>>
>>>> However to get started on the right track. I would like to propose the following
easy step:
>>>>
>>>> Starting Monday June 29th (next monday):
>>>>
>>>> - Only commit through PR will land on master (after a minimum of 2 LGTM and
green Travis results)
>>>> - Direct commit will be reverted
>>>> - Any committer can merge the PR.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I’ve been trying to help close PRs, it was difficult at first but then I found
some tooling to help me do that. I think it’s certainly do-able without investing a lot
of effort to do it, perhaps can done everyday or every few days in a week.
>>>
>>> Some suggestions and comments to improve PR reviewing/merging:
>>>
>>> - Let's merge the PR commits in a fast forward way instead of doing a branch
merge that introduces frivolous merge commits. This is one approach to do quickly and painlessly:
>>>
>>> http://blog.remibergsma.com/2015/05/24/accepting-pull-requests-the-easy-way/
>>>
>>> - Let’s try to send PR around on one issue or one broad issue, or against a
JIRA ticket; but avoid unrelated sub-systems etc
>>>
>>> - If there are not many changes (say less than 100-200 lines were changed), let's
have the changes melded into one commit. This can be done either by the PR author or by the
committer. The immediate benefit is that all the changes will be much easy to port across
other branches, easy to view and follow git-log, and easy to revert-able.
>>>
>>> - Certain PRs that are typographical fixes, doc fixes and tooling related fixes
- so let’s review and merge them if we’ve at least one green review (“LGTM”), though
changes to CloudStack mgmt server, agent and plugins codebase IMO should have at least 2 green
reviews (“LGTM”).
>>>
>>>> Goal being to start having a new practice -everything through PR for everyone-
which is an easy way to gate our own commits building up to a PR.
>>>>
>>>> There is no tooling involved, just human agreement.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rohit Yadav
>>> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
>>> M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
>>> Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>>>
>>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>>> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>>> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>>>
>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related
companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any
action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if
you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated
in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and
is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company
incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty
Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from
Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>>
>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>>
>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>>
>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely
for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related
companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any
action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if
you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated
in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and
is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company
incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty
Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from
Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>



-- 
Daan

Mime
View raw message