deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Workflow for contributions
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:21:17 GMT
thx christian!

regards,
gerhard



2012/1/18 Christian Kaltepoth <christian@kaltepoth.de>

> Hi @all,
>
> I've just added a first version of the workflow description to the
> corresponding wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/Suggested+Git+Workflows
>
> Christian
>
>
> 2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>:
> > hi @ all,
> >
> > as we have seen the suggestion of christian works pretty well and at
> least
> > for contributions via patches, we should use it imo (it's better than the
> > typical "thx to [name of contributor]" in the commit message).
> >
> > @christian:
> > if there are no objections, it would be nice if you add it to [1].
> >
> > @new features which consist of multiple commits:
> > (there needs to be at least a jira ticket and we have to review it in any
> > case - just trusting an external contributor without reviewing the
> > contribution won't work at all imo.)
> > since we suggest to work with >local< branches, we could think about
> > suggesting branches for new features as well.
> > e.g.: create branch -> commits -> push it to a public repository -> add
> the
> > link to the jira ticket.
> > -> a committer performs a pull >rebase< on the remote branch as soon as
> we
> > agreed on it -> we still have a clean commit history.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/Suggested+Git+Workflows
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2012/1/15 Marius Bogoevici <marius.bogoevici@gmail.com>
> >
> >>
> >> On 2012-01-15, at 11:25 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >>
> >> > basically that would be fine.
> >> >
> >> > But note that any user on github _might_ be faked. It's simple for
> >> everyone to e.g. create a commit with "Marius Bogoevici <
> >> marius.bogoevici@gmail.com>" as committer info ;)
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So please only pull from locations you know and have verified in the
> >> past - otherwise let the contributor creat a Jira issue and he should
> >> attach the patch + pull request there.
> >>
> >> Sure, but I thought that we were already discussing this in the context
> of
> >> two sources which authorize submitters beforehand, viz.: JIRA+patch and
> >> github. Ultimately, in both cases the submitter must be trusted.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > LieGrue,
> >> > strub
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: Marius Bogoevici <marius.bogoevici@gmail.com>
> >> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> Cc:
> >> >> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 8:16 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Workflow for contributions
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 2012-01-14, at 12:39 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Is it not still possible to use Pull requests, but simply merge
them
> >> >>> manually against the proper repository? Github would see the changes
> >> in the
> >> >>> repository and automatically close the pull request once the merge
> has
> >> been
> >> >>> completed (and synced with Github.) Additionally, pull requests
that
> >> were
> >> >>> only partially merged or accepted can still be closed manually.
> >> >>
> >> >> That should work pretty well too, especially if multi-commit pull
> >> requests are
> >> >> discouraged or even
> >> >> banned (and I personally think that they should, as they are can be
a
> >> PITA to
> >> >> review).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Would that be too confusing?
> >> >>> ~Lincoln
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Marius Bogoevici <
> >> >>> marius.bogoevici@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On 2012-01-14, at 11:55 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Marius Bogoevici
> >> >>>>> <marius.bogoevici@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 2012-01-14, at 10:14 AM, Christian Kaltepoth wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> I think we should talk about how contributions
and patch
> >> >> submissions
> >> >>>> could
> >> >>>>>>> work in the future.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Everybody familiar with GitHub knows pull requests
which
> >> >> offer a great
> >> >>>> way
> >> >>>>>>> to submit patches to a project. But as the ASF
repository
> >> >> doesn't offer
> >> >>>>>>> such a feature we should think about how we could
handle
> >> >> contributions
> >> >>>>>>> while getting as much out of git as possible.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> One way to handle this is to use "git
> >> >> format-patch" which is able to
> >> >>>>>>> package a series of commits into one file (see
[1] for an
> >> >> examle).
> >> >>>> Using
> >> >>>>>>> format-patch has some nice advantages over standard
patch
> >> >> files. The
> >> >>>> major
> >> >>>>>>> advantage is that individual commits including
their commit
> >> >> messages
> >> >>>> and
> >> >>>>>>> author are preserved.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Creating such patches is very easy. Just create
a local
> >> >> branch, do the
> >> >>>>>>> commits there and then create the patch this way:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> $ git format-patch --stdout master >
> >> >> ../DELTASPIKE-XXX.patch
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Applying such patches is also straight forward:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> $ git am < ../DELTASPIKE-XXX.patch
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> The most important question we have to answer is
if we
> >> >> should accept
> >> >>>> such
> >> >>>>>>> "git format-patch" patches in the future or if
we
> >> >> stick with the
> >> >>>> classic
> >> >>>>>>> "diff" patches.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> The only reason against the "git format-patch"
> >> >> contributions I could
> >> >>>> think
> >> >>>>>>> of would be that the name of the original patch
author (who
> >> >> is
> >> >>>> presumably
> >> >>>>>>> not ASF member) appears in the commit. But IMHO
this
> >> >> shouldn't be a
> >> >>>> real
> >> >>>>>>> problem because the name of the committer that
applied the
> >> >> patch is
> >> >>>> also
> >> >>>>>>> added (see [2] for an example).
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I would argue that preserving a reference to the original
> >> >> contributor
> >> >>>> is very
> >> >>>>>> desirable. For one thing, giving credit where it's
due is
> >> >> the fair
> >> >>>> thing to do - on the other hand,
> >> >>>>>> it is a good way of tracing the amount of individual
> >> >> contributions for
> >> >>>> non-committer contributors
> >> >>>>>> (e.g. before they become committers in their own right).
Now,
> >> >> quantity
> >> >>>> is really just one of the
> >> >>>>>> metrics (the other one being quality, of course), but
I'd
> >> >> say that it's
> >> >>>> still good to have this kind of
> >> >>>>>> stuff remembered somewhere.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> This won't necessarily be the case 100% of the time, but
I
> >> >> would hope
> >> >>>>> that a given contribution would typically not be pulled
into the
> >> >> main
> >> >>>>> repository without meeting or exceeding the DeltaSpike
> >> >> committer's
> >> >>>>> standard of minimum quality.  So in most cases, quantity
of
> >> >>>>> contributions, along with other forms of community participation
> >> >>>>> (there have been committers and even PMC members elected
to
> >> >> projects
> >> >>>>> with *no* actual code contributed), would remain a decent
metric.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yes, and other SCMs (SVN for instance) tend to blur this. So,
I see
> >> >> using
> >> >>>> the way
> >> >>>> in which git format-patch works more like a desirable feature
we
> shall
> >> >>>> use, rather than a
> >> >>>> hindrance we need to work around.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Matt
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Any thoughts on this? I think we should create
a wiki page
> >> >> for the
> >> >>>> process
> >> >>>>>>> however it will look like so that new contributors
can get
> >> >> started
> >> >>>> quickly.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Christian
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> [1]
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12510524/DELTASPIKE-49.patch
> >> >>>>>>> [2]
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-deltaspike.git;a=commit;h=becf0ff57bfbf472fc7c1e07a0c68746aa00018b
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
> >> >>>>>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
> >> >>>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Lincoln Baxter, III
> >> >>> http://ocpsoft.com
> >> >>> http://scrumshark.com
> >> >>> "Keep it Simple"
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>

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