flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question about Commit Policy
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:52:18 GMT
I did not propose to pick the 5 most suitable tags. ;-)
Just to mark commits that break or extend the API.
If [api-breaking] and [api-extending] is considered to waste too much
space, I would also be happy with [api-] and [api+] (or any other
meaningful marker).

2015-01-28 2:37 GMT+01:00 Márton Balassi <balassi.marton@gmail.com>:

> Originally I was going to support Fabian's suggestion - I still like it,
> but I have to admit that it can become a slight overkill like in de8e066.
> [1]
>
> [1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/flink/commit/de8e066
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Max Michels <max@data-artisans.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Aljoscha. Instead, I would suggest to make a tag in the
> > commit message mandatory. That way, you could list the associated
> > commits using git log --grep=api-breaking
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > But thats very long, and together with the issue tag I almost always
> > > have  I lose a lot of my precious 80 characters.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> I know I argued against "enforcing" commit tags, but how about we make
> > two
> > >> tags mandatory, i.e., [api-breaking] and [api-extending]?
> > >>
> > >> 2015-01-07 18:15 GMT+01:00 Gyula Fóra <gyfora@apache.org>:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>> This was much needed :)
> > >>> 2015.01.07. 18:10 ezt írta ("Max Michels" <max@data-artisans.com>):
> > >>>
> > >>> > Nice.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>> > > +1
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > @Stephan: thanks! :-)
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >> Hi all!
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Since the feedback was positive, I added the guidelines
to the
> > wiki,
> > >>> > with a
> > >>> > >> disclaimer that this is being refined.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Apache+Flink+development+guidelines
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Stephan
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <
> > ktzoumas@apache.org>
> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> > +1
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > Let's encourage the use of component tags, I don't
see the
> need
> > for
> > >>> > >> > enforcing it. For commits that affect one component,
I expect
> > people
> > >>> > will
> > >>> > >> > use it.
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Fabian Hueske <
> > fhueske@apache.org>
> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > > +1 for the guide and JIRA references.
> > >>> > >> > >
> > >>> > >> > > I'd keep the component tags optional though.
> > >>> > >> > > As Max said, there is less space to display
a meaning
> message
> > if a
> > >>> > >> commit
> > >>> > >> > > addresses several components. Separating changes
into
> commits
> > by
> > >>> > >> > components
> > >>> > >> > > sounds not very practical to me.
> > >>> > >> > > Also without a clear definition of when to
add which
> component
> > >>> tag,
> > >>> > we
> > >>> > >> > > cannot rely on them anyway.
> > >>> > >> > >
> > >>> > >> > > Git should also have better tools than browsing
commit
> > messages
> > >>> when
> > >>> > >> > > looking for a commit that changed specific
code.
> > >>> > >> > >
> > >>> > >> > > 2015-01-07 15:24 GMT+01:00 Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>:
> > >>> > >> > >
> > >>> > >> > > > I personally like the tags very much.
I think the
> streaming
> > >>> > component
> > >>> > >> > was
> > >>> > >> > > > the first to introduce it and it stuck
me as a very good
> > idea.
> > >>> > >> > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > +1 to stick with them
> > >>> > >> > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Márton
Balassi <
> > >>> > >> > balassi.marton@gmail.com
> > >>> > >> > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >>> > >> > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > I prefer component declarations,
the current best
> practice
> > >>> > comes in
> > >>> > >> > > handy
> > >>> > >> > > > > when searching through commits. Answering
a "when did
> key
> > >>> > selection
> > >>> > >> > > > change
> > >>> > >> > > > > for streaming?" type question I just
had to answer would
> > have
> > >>> > been
> > >>> > >> a
> > >>> > >> > > bit
> > >>> > >> > > > > more difficult without it - manageable
though.
> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > In case of streaming it does not
yield much to omit the
> > >>> > component
> > >>> > >> > > > > declaration, most of the time then
we would need to add
> > it to
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > >> > > commit
> > >>> > >> > > > > message itself, e.g. :
> > >>> > >> > > > > "[streaming] Join API rework", could
be e.g. rewritten
> as
> > >>> "Join
> > >>> > API
> > >>> > >> > > > rework
> > >>> > >> > > > > for streaming". I do prefer the former
one, because it
> is
> > not
> > >>> > only
> > >>> > >> > more
> > >>> > >> > > > > straight-forward to understand, but
a bit shorter as
> well.
> > >>> > >> > > > > Of course there are counter-examples,
like "[streaming]
> > >>> > DataStream
> > >>> > >> > > > > refactor" -> "DataStream refactor".
> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > I can accept optional, but would
like to keep it
> strongly
> > >>> > >> recommended
> > >>> > >> > > for
> > >>> > >> > > > > streaming. I also find the [docs]
tag helpful.
> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Stephan
Ewen <
> > >>> sewen@apache.org>
> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > Should we put that to an official
vote, or wait for
> > people
> > >>> to
> > >>> > >> > comment
> > >>> > >> > > > and
> > >>> > >> > > > > > (if nobody objects) consider
it as agreed on through
> > lazy
> > >>> > >> > consensus?
> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:34
PM, Márton Balassi <
> > >>> > >> > > > balassi.marton@gmail.com
> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > +1 for the guide, thanks
for clarifying the issue
> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at
2:30 PM, Till Rohrmann <
> > >>> > >> > > trohrmann@apache.org>
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > +1
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015
at 12:41 PM, Aljoscha Krettek
> <
> > >>> > >> > > > > aljoscha@apache.org
> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we should
have a guide like that somewhere.
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7,
2015 at 12:33 PM, Stephan Ewen <
> > >>> > >> > > sewen@apache.org>
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > We have
not exactly defined this so far, but
> it
> > is a
> > >>> > good
> > >>> > >> > > point
> > >>> > >> > > > > to
> > >>> > >> > > > > > do
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > so.
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > I personally
find it good to have changes
> > associated
> > >>> > with
> > >>> > >> > an
> > >>> > >> > > > > issue,
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > because
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > it allows
you to trace back why the change was
> > done.
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > To make
sure we do not overdo this and impose
> > >>> totally
> > >>> > >> > > > unnecessary
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > overhead,
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > I would
suggest the following:
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > *No issue
is required for*
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - Small
fixes like typos, simple warnings,
> > >>> > >> > > adding/improving a
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > comment
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - Adding
and improving existing pages of the
> > >>> > >> > documentation
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - Simple
improvements of style / elegance /
> > >>> > efficiency
> > >>> > >> > > > (simple
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > rewriting
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > a loop /
condition / method interaction) if no
> > >>> > behavior
> > >>> > >> is
> > >>> > >> > > > > changed
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > ==> Basically
anything that does not change or
> > add
> > >>> > >> > > > functionality
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > *An issue
is required for*
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > Everything
else, in particular:
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - Anything
that changes functionality or
> > behavior
> > >>> > >> > relevant
> > >>> > >> > > to
> > >>> > >> > > > > > users
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - Anything
that changes functionality or
> > behavior
> > >>> > >> > relevant
> > >>> > >> > > to
> > >>> > >> > > > > > other
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > components
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - Anything
that adds a feature
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > I would
vote to allow coarse issues and have
> > >>> multiple
> > >>> > >> > commits
> > >>> > >> > > > > that
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > reference
it
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > [FLINK-1234]
[runtime] Runtime support some
> > cool new
> > >>> > >> thing
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > [FLINK-1234]
[java api] Add hook for cool
> thing
> > to
> > >>> > java
> > >>> > >> api
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > [FLINK-1234]
[scala api] Add hook for that
> > thing to
> > >>> > scala
> > >>> > >> > api
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > [FLINK-1234]
[optimizer] Make optimizer aware
> > that
> > >>> it
> > >>> > can
> > >>> > >> > > > exploit
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > this
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > thing
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > The guide
lines for pull-requests for
> > committers are
> > >>> > as
> > >>> > >> > > > follows:
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > *A pull
request with comments/additional
> > signoff is
> > >>> > >> > required
> > >>> > >> > > > for
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > anything
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > that*
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - breaks
the public APIs
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - adds
methods to the public APIs (that will
> > need
> > >>> > to be
> > >>> > >> > > kept
> > >>> > >> > > > > > stable
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > from
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > them on)
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - alters
user-facing behavior (e.g.,
> > mutability of
> > >>> > >> types,
> > >>> > >> > > > null
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > value
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > handling,
window semantics, ...)
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - adds
user-facing knobs (switches, config
> > >>> > parameters,
> > >>> > >> > > > > execution
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > option
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > on the execution
environment)
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - adds
additional maven dependencies
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - changes
the way components interact
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >   - touches
highly sensitive and performance
> > >>> critical
> > >>> > >> > parts,
> > >>> > >> > > > such
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > memory
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > management
or network stack
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > ==> Changes
that come with a pull request
> should
> > >>> have
> > >>> > one
> > >>> > >> > or
> > >>> > >> > > > more
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > issues
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > associated
with them.
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > Anyone that
wants to have comments or some
> > >>> additional
> > >>> > >> pairs
> > >>> > >> > > of
> > >>> > >> > > > > eyes
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > in
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > code should
make a pull request as well.
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > *Naming
scheme for commits*
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > [issue]
[component] Message
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > For fixes
without an issue, the issue can be
> > >>> dropped.
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > What do
you think? Should we put this into the
> > Wiki?
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > Greetings,
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > Stephan
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed,
Jan 7, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Aljoscha
> > Krettek <
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > aljoscha@apache.org
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > I feel
we never really talked about this.
> So,
> > >>> > should we
> > >>> > >> > > open
> > >>> > >> > > > > Jira
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > issues
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > even
for very small fixes and then add the
> > ticket
> > >>> > >> number
> > >>> > >> > to
> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > commit?
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > Or
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > should
we just commit those small fixes.
> Right
> > >>> now,
> > >>> > I
> > >>> > >> > have
> > >>> > >> > > > two
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > small
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > fixes
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > (one
is 4 lines, the other one is two lines)
> > for
> > >>> the
> > >>> > >> > > > > > ValueTypeInfo
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > and
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > TextValueInputFormat.
Very obscure stuff, I
> > know.
> > >>> :D
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Aljoscha
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > >>> > >> > > >
> > >>> > >> > >
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
>

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