Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of fil@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.233 as permitted sender)
From: Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" <dev@cordova.apache.org>,
        "alunny@gmail.com"
	<alunny@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:36:21 -0800
Subject: Re: Can we talk about large features before they arrive in master?
Thread-Topic: Can we talk about large features before they arrive in master?
Thread-Index: Ac3411PM6bA+stNuRS+FgPhHz/O4HQ==
Message-ID: <CD242A32.16406%fil@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPihERQ7_7m3MynoibeZTWoBZduYcwkuAH7HhLQkWSn6OW56nA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Not a bad idea, noted

On 1/22/13 10:57 AM, "Andrew Lunny" <alunny@gmail.com> wrote:

>Outsider observation/note: probably useful for step 4 to tie into the CI -
>getting the pull request to notify Fil's CI project.
>
>On 22 January 2013 10:53, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Here's a draft for a new "Committing Your Own Changes:" section on
>> http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CommitterWorkflow
>>
>> Step 1: Mail the Mailing-list
>>   - This is required if:
>>     - Your change will add/remove/change any public Cordova APIs.
>>     - You suspect that your change has a chance of being controversial
>>     - You would like feedback before you begin.
>>
>> When possible, try to phrase things in the form of a proposal. If no one
>> objects (within a workday or two), then consider yourself to have Lazy
>> Consensus=20
>><http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus>.
>>
>> Step 2: Ensure there is a JIRA issue.
>>   - JIRA issues are used for both new features and for bugs.
>>   - The "Fix For" field is used for the purpose of Release Notes.
>>   - The issues are also used to track which commits / topic branches are
>> related to them.
>>
>> Step 3: Create a topic branch
>>   - Using a public topic branch is necessary only when either:
>>      1. you would like to collaborate on the feature
>>      2. you would like feedback on your code before committing
>>   - For small bugfixes, public topic branches are not required.
>>   - Note: You should never rebase a public topic branch!
>>
>> Step 4: Ask for a code review
>>   - If you are using a public topic branch, then you should ask for a
>>code
>> review when you consider it to be complete.
>>   - For now, use a github pull request. Soon, use reviews.apache.org.
>>   - Email the ML so that anyone who is available can have a look at your
>> code. If you have someone in particular that you would like approval
>>from,
>> be sure to add them in the To: of your email.
>>   - Again, sometimes this will end with a Lazy
>> Consensus<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus>
>> .
>>
>> Step 5: Merge your change
>>   - Once your topic branch is tested & working, it's time to merge it.
>>Use
>> the following workflow:
>>
>> git checkout master
>> git pull apache master
>> git checkout topic_branch
>> git checkout -b to_be_merged
>> git rebase master -i
>> ...
>> git checkout master
>> git merge --ff-only to_be_merged
>> git push apache master
>> git branch -d to_be_merged
>> git branch -D topic_branch
>> git push apache :topic_branch
>>
>> The rebase -i step is your chance to clean up the commit messages and to
>> combine small commits when appropriate. For example:
>> Commit A: Implemented RockOn feature (CB-1234)
>> Commit B: Added tests for RockOn (CB-1234)
>> Commit C: Fixed RockOn not working with empty strings
>> Commit D: Renamed RockOn to JustRock
>> Commit E: Refactor MainFeature to make use of JustRock.
>>
>> In this case, it would be appropriate to combine commits A-D into a
>>single
>> commit, or at least commits A & C. Having a smaller number of commits
>>when
>> merging makes it easier for others to comprehend the diff commits, and
>>also
>> makes it easier to roll-back commits should the need arise. For JS
>>commits,
>> prefix the message with [platform] so that it's clear who should take
>> interest in the commit. For all commits, be sure to include the JIRA
>>issue
>> number / URL.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Braden Shepherdson <braden@chromium.org
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Code reviews will generally sound good to Googlers, so long as we can
>> keep
>> > the turnaround down. It definitely keeps our code quality high on
>> internal
>> > projects, even if it is sometimes a pain to have to wait for a
>>response
>> and
>> > do your own reviews. I've asked Michal and Andrew for
>>over-the-shoulder
>> iOS
>> > reviews in the past, since I'm new to that platform.
>> >
>> > I also want to apologize for the trouble with the ArrayBuffers on
>> Android.
>> > I was running into the bug with navigating in mobile-spec causing
>> > deviceready not to fire, and had just changed my start page to the
>>binary
>> > echo test Michal wrote. It started working, so I cleaned up my
>>debugging
>> > and pushed. That was premature, since I broke some of the tests and
>> hadn't
>> > run the automatic tests. Gomen nasai.
>> >
>> >
>> > Braden
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > ReviewBoard seems like a great fit to me! Let's try it out!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Brian M Dube <bdube@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On 01/21/2013 01:24 PM, Joe Bowser wrote:
>> > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Grieve <
>> agrieve@chromium.org
>> > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> As for code reviews:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'd certainly be interested in more code-reviews. I think it's
>> > really
>> > > > >> useful to get feedback on changes. The only time when it
>>becomes a
>> > > > burden
>> > > > >> is when turn-around time gets too long (e.g. you submit for
>>review
>> > and
>> > > > no
>> > > > >> one looks at it for over a day).
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Up until now, we've been using the github pull-request
>>interface
>> to
>> > > have
>> > > > >> others review our changes, but this isn't done very
>>frequently. I
>> > also
>> > > > >> don't love this approach because comments through it don't get
>> > posted
>> > > > back
>> > > > >> to the cordova mailing-list.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm not super thrilled by this either, because our GitHub pull
>> > request
>> > > > > system is completely broken since we can't actually close
>>requests
>> > and
>> > > > > indicate when we think things are a good idea or not. I think we
>> > > > > should do what Android does with Gerrit (see
>> > > > > https://android-review.googlesource.com) , but that'll involve
>> > > > > additional infrastructure and another war with INFRA about
>>whether
>> > > > > it's the Apache way or whatever.
>> > > >
>> > > > An instance of ReviewBoard [1] exists at Apache [2], so I don't
>>think
>> > it
>> > > > means war about the Apache way. Is that something that could fill
>> this
>> > > > need?
>> > > >
>> > > > Brian
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://reviews.apache.org/
>> > > > [2]
>> > > >
>> >=20
>>https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/reviewboard_instance_running_at_the
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>