flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Extending and improving our "How to contribute" page
Date Sun, 21 Feb 2016 08:23:57 GMT
+1 for slight addition from Max.

Travis exist for helping to run all tests not in your local dev.

On Friday, February 19, 2016, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@gmail.com> wrote:

> Max, you're right.
> Not necessarily a local build, but a least "some" build to verify that the
> code compiles and most tests pass.
> I said local builds because this is the easiest way to check for somebody
> not familiar with our setup.
>
> I think it is a good idea to explicitly state the command to run: "mvn
> clean verify".
> This will help everybody not familiar with the setup and all others (e.g.,
> Travis users) know how to run a build anyway.
>
> Best, Fabian
>
> 2016-02-19 13:47 GMT+01:00 Maximilian Michels <mxm@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>:
>
> > +1 for the documentation check box.
> >
> > Are we requiring local builds? Travis builds are fine, right? So what
> > about "Builds locally or on Travis"?
> >
> > Could we add more subpoints from the How to Contribute guide?
> >
> > [X] General
> >   - JIRA issue associated
> >   - Single PR per change
> >   - Meaningful commit message
> >
> > [X] CodeStyle
> >   - No unnecessary style changes
> >   - Check Style passes
> >
> > [X] Documentation
> >   - New documentation added
> >   - Old documentation updated
> >   - Javadocs for public methods
> >
> > [X] Tests
> >    - Tests added or adapted
> >    - Executed mvn verify or built on Travis
> >
> >
> > Martin, do you want to move this discussion to a new thread and
> > propose a template?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Max
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > Thanks Martin!
> > >
> > > can you add two more fields?
> > >
> > > - Builds locally (mvn clean verify)
> > > - Documentation updated or not updates necessary
> > >
> > > Best, Fabian
> > >
> > > 2016-02-19 9:35 GMT+01:00 Martin Liesenberg <
> martin.liesenberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >:
> > >
> > >> Cool, if no one objects, I'll create a JIRA ticket and open a
> > corresponding
> > >> PR during the weekend.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards
> > >> Martin
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, 17:36 Maximilian Michels <mxm@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Martin,
> > >> >
> > >> > Sounds like a good idea to me to create a checklist like this. It
> > >> > would be a nice reminder for people who didn't read the
> > >> > how-to-contribute section of the README :)
> > >> >
> > >> > Cheers,
> > >> > Max
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Martin Liesenberg
> > >> > <martin.liesenberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > Hi,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > GitHub just introduced a way to supply PR templates. [1]
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To support the changes discussed here, we could add a simple
> > template
> > >> > with
> > >> > > check boxes like:
> > >> > > [ ] did you add tests
> > >> > > [ ] did you check against the coding guidelines
> > >> > > [ ] is there a jira supporting the PR
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Let me know what you think. The language/tone probably needs a bit
> > of
> > >> > > refinement.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > best regards
> > >> > > martin
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [1] https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org <javascript:;>> schrieb am
> Do., 15. Okt. 2015
> > um
> > >> > > 11:58 Uhr:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Thanks for leading the effort Fabian!
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Maximilian Michels <
> > mxm@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > Very nice work, Fabian. I think we'll have to send around a
> > reminder
> > >> > >> > from time to time and, perhaps, evaluate the new guidelines
> after
> > >> some
> > >> > >> > period of time. It's great to have these documents now as a
> > >> reference.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >> > > Great, thanks Fabian!
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Henry Saputra <
> > >> > henry.saputra@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >> Thanks again for leading this effort, Fabian
> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> - Henry
> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Fabian Hueske <
> > fhueske@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> > Hi everybody,
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >> > I merged our new contribution guidelines a few minutes
> ago.
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >> > I'd like to emphasize that these rules do not have any
> > effect,
> > >> if
> > >> > >> > nobody
> > >> > >> > >> > follows them.
> > >> > >> > >> > So please follow our contribution rules and make others
> > aware
> > >> of
> > >> > >> them
> > >> > >> > as
> > >> > >> > >> > well.
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >> > Specifically
> > >> > >> > >> > - pay attention that all PRs are backed by a JIRA and ask
> to
> > >> > create
> > >> > >> a
> > >> > >> > >> JIRA
> > >> > >> > >> > if that is not the case
> > >> > >> > >> > - early discuss whether a feature request is valid (before
> > code
> > >> > is
> > >> > >> > >> > contributed) to avoid frustrating late rejections of PRs.
> > >> > >> > >> > - request, provide, and discuss design docs for sensible
> > >> > >> > contributions to
> > >> > >> > >> > avoid major redesigns / rejections of PRs.
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >> > Thank you,
> > >> > >> > >> > Fabian
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >> > 2015-10-07 10:16 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <
> fhueske@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > >:
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >> > > Thanks for the feedback everybody.
> > >> > >> > >> > > I updated the PR and would like to merge it later today
> if
> > >> > there
> > >> > >> > are no
> > >> > >> > >> > > more comments.
> > >> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >> > > Cheers, Fabian
> > >> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >> > > 2015-10-05 14:09 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <
> > fhueske@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>:
> > >> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >> I opened a PR with the discussed changes [1].
> > >> > >> > >> > >> Please review, give feedback, and suggest changes.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers, Fabian
> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/11
> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2015-09-28 18:02 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <
> > fhueske@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>> @Chiwan, sure. Will do that. Thanks for pointing it
> out
> > :-)
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>> 2015-09-28 18:00 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <
> > >> > chiwanpark@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> @Fabian, Could you cover FLINK-2712 in your pull
> > request?
> > >> I
> > >> > >> think
> > >> > >> > >> that
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> it would be better than split pull request.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> Regards,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> Chiwan Park
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Fabian Hueske <
> > >> > >> fhueske@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > Thanks everybody for the discussion.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > I'll prepare a pull request to update the "How to
> > >> > contribute"
> > >> > >> > and
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> "Coding
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > Guidelines".
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > Thanks,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > Fabian
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > 2015-09-26 9:06 GMT+02:00 Maximilian Michels <
> > >> > mxm@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> Hi Fabian,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> This is a very important topic. Thanks for
> starting
> > the
> > >> > >> > >> discussion.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> 1) JIRA discussion
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> Absolutely. No new feature should be introduced
> > >> without a
> > >> > >> > >> > discussion.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> Frankly, I see the problem that sometimes
> > discussions
> > >> > only
> > >> > >> > come
> > >> > >> > >> up
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> when the pull request has been opened. However,
> this
> > >> can
> > >> > be
> > >> > >> > >> > overcome
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> by the design document.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> 2) Design document
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> +1 for the document. It increases transparency but
> > also
> > >> > >> helps
> > >> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> contributor to think his idea through before
> > starting
> > >> to
> > >> > >> code.
> > >> > >> > >> The
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> document could also be written directly in JIRA.
> > That
> > >> > way,
> > >> > >> it
> > >> > >> > is
> > >> > >> > >> > more
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> accessible. JIRA offers mark up; even images can
> be
> > >> > attached
> > >> > >> > and
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> displayed in the JIRA description.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> I'd like to propose another section "Limitations"
> > for
> > >> the
> > >> > >> > design
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> document. Breaking API changes should also be
> listed
> > >> on a
> > >> > >> > special
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> Wiki
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> page.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> 3) Coding style
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> In addition to updating the document, do we want
> to
> > >> > enforce
> > >> > >> > >> coding
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> styles also by adding new Maven Checkstyle rules?
> > IMHO
> > >> > >> strict
> > >> > >> > >> rules
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> could cause more annoyances than they actually
> > >> > contribute to
> > >> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> readability of the code. Perhaps this should be
> > >> discussed
> > >> > >> in a
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> separate thread.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> +1 for collecting common problems and design
> > patterns
> > >> to
> > >> > >> > include
> > >> > >> > >> > them
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> in the document. I was thinking, that we should
> also
> > >> > cover
> > >> > >> > some
> > >> > >> > >> of
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> features of tools and dependencies we heavily use,
> > e.g.
> > >> > >> > Travis,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> Mockito, Guava, Log4j, FlinkMiniCluster, Unit
> > testing
> > >> vs
> > >> > IT
> > >> > >> > >> cases,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> etc.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> 4 ) Restructuring the how to contribute guide
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> Good idea to have a meta document that explains
> how
> > >> > >> > contributing
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> works
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> in general, and another document for technical
> > things.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> Cheers,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> Max
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Fabian Hueske <
> > >> > >> > >> fhueske@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Thanks everybody for feedback and comments.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Regarding 1) and 2):
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> I like the idea of keeping the discussion of new
> > >> > features
> > >> > >> and
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> improvements
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> in JIRA as Kostas proposed.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Our coding guidelines [1] already request a JIRA
> > issue
> > >> > for
> > >> > >> > each
> > >> > >> > >> > pull
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> request.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> How about we highlight this requirement more
> > >> prominently
> > >> > >> and
> > >> > >> > >> > follow
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> this
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> rule more strict from now on.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> JIRA issues for new features and improvements
> > should
> > >> > >> clearly
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> specify the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> scope and requirements for the new feature /
> > >> > improvement.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> The level of detail is up to the reporter of the
> > >> issue,
> > >> > but
> > >> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> community
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> can request more detail or change the scope and
> > >> > >> requirements
> > >> > >> > by
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> discussion.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> When a JIRA issue for a new feature or
> improvement
> > is
> > >> > >> opened,
> > >> > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> community
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> can start a discussion whether the feature is
> > >> desirable
> > >> > for
> > >> > >> > >> Flink
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> or not.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Any contributor (including the reporter) can also
> > >> > attach a
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> "design-doc-requested" label to the issue. A
> design
> > >> > >> document
> > >> > >> > can
> > >> > >> > >> > be
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> proposed by anybody, including the reporter or
> > >> assignee
> > >> > of
> > >> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > >> > JIRA
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> issue.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> However, the issue cannot be resolved and a
> > >> > corresponding
> > >> > >> PR
> > >> > >> > not
> > >> > >> > >> > be
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> merged
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> before a design document has been accepted by
> lazy
> > >> > >> consensus.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> Hence, an
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> assignee should propose a design doc before
> > starting
> > >> to
> > >> > >> code
> > >> > >> > to
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> avoid
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> major
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> redesigns of the implementation.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> This way it is up to the community when to start
> a
> > >> > >> discussion
> > >> > >> > >> > about
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> whether
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> a feature request is accepted or to request a
> > design
> > >> > >> > document.
> > >> > >> > >> We
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> can
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> make
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> design documents mandatory for changes that touch
> > the
> > >> > >> public
> > >> > >> > >> API.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Regarding 3):
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> I agree with Vasia, that we should collect
> > suggestions
> > >> > for
> > >> > >> > >> common
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> patterns
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> and also continuously update the coding
> guidelines.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> @Henry, I had best practices (exception handling,
> > >> tests,
> > >> > >> > etc.)
> > >> > >> > >> in
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> mind.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Syntactic code style is important as well, but we
> > >> should
> > >> > >> > have a
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> separate
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> discussion about that, IMO.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Proposal for a design document template:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> - Overview of general approach
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> - API changes (changed interfaces, new /
> deprecated
> > >> > >> > >> configuration
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> parameters, changed behavior)
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> - Main components and classes to touch
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Cheers,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Fabian
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> [1]
> http://flink.apache.org/coding-guidelines.html
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> <http://flink.apache.org/coding-guidelines.html>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> 2015-09-24 10:52 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <
> > >> > >> > chiwanpark@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Thanks Fabian for starting the discussion.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> +1 for overall approach.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> About (1), expressing that consensus must be
> > required
> > >> > for
> > >> > >> > new
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> feature
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> in
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> “How to contribute” page is very nice. Some pull
> > >> > requests
> > >> > >> > were
> > >> > >> > >> > sent
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> without
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> consensus. The contributors had to rewrote their
> > pull
> > >> > >> > requests.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Agree with (2), (3) and (4).
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Regards,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Chiwan Park
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Henry Saputra <
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> henry.saputra@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> Thanks again, Fabian for starting the
> > discussions.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> For (1) and (2) I think it is good idea and
> will
> > >> help
> > >> > >> > people
> > >> > >> > >> to
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> understand and follow the author thought
> process.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> Following up with Stephan's reply, some new
> > features
> > >> > >> > solutions
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> could
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> be explained thoroughly in the PR descriptions
> > but
> > >> > some
> > >> > >> > >> requires
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> additional reviews of the proposed design.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> I like the idea of using tag in JIRA whether
> new
> > >> > features
> > >> > >> > >> should
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> or
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> should not being accompanied by design
> document.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> Agree with (3) and (4).
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> As for (3) are you thinking about more of style
> > of
> > >> > code
> > >> > >> > syntax
> > >> > >> > >> > via
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> checkstyle updates, or best practices in term
> of
> > no
> > >> > >> mutable
> > >> > >> > >> > state
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> if
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> possible, throw precise Exception if possible
> for
> > >> > >> > interfaces,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> etc. ?
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> - Henry
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Stephan Ewen <
> > >> > >> > >> sewen@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Fabian for driving this!
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> I agree with your points.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> Concerning Vasia's comment to not raise the
> bar
> > too
> > >> > >> high:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> That is true, the requirements should be
> > >> reasonable.
> > >> > We
> > >> > >> > can
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> definitely
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> tag
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> issues as "simple" which means they do not
> > require
> > >> a
> > >> > >> > design
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> document.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> That
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> should be more for new features and needs not
> be
> > >> very
> > >> > >> > >> detailed.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> We could also make the inverse, meaning we
> > >> explicitly
> > >> > >> tag
> > >> > >> > >> > certain
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> issues as
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> "requires design document".
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> Greetings,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> Stephan
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Vasiliki
> > Kalavri <
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> vasilikikalavri@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Hi,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> I agree with you Fabian. Clarifying these
> > issues
> > >> in
> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > "How
> > >> > >> > >> > to
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Contribute"
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> guide will save lots of time both to
> reviewers
> > and
> > >> > >> > >> > contributors.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> It is
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> a
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> really disappointing situation when someone
> > spends
> > >> > time
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> implementing
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> something and their PR ends up being rejected
> > >> > because
> > >> > >> > either
> > >> > >> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> feature
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> was not needed or the implementation details
> > were
> > >> > never
> > >> > >> > >> agreed
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> on.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> That said, I think we should also make sure
> > that
> > >> we
> > >> > >> don't
> > >> > >> > >> > raise
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> bar too
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> high for simple contributions.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Regarding (1) and (2), I think we should
> > clarify
> > >> > what
> > >> > >> > kind
> > >> > >> > >> of
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> additions/changes require this process to be
> > >> > followed.
> > >> > >> > e.g.
> > >> > >> > >> do
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> we
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> need
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> to
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> discuss additions for which JIRAs already
> > exist?
> > >> > Ideas
> > >> > >> > >> > described
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> in the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> roadmaps? Adding a new algorithm to
> > >> Gelly/Flink-ML?
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Regarding (3), maybe we can all suggest some
> > >> > >> > >> examples/patterns
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> that
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> we've
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> seen when reviewing PRs and then choose the
> > most
> > >> > common
> > >> > >> > (or
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> all).
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> (4) sounds good to me.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Vasia.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> On 23 September 2015 at 15:08, Kostas
> Tzoumas <
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> ktzoumas@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> Big +1.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> For (1), a discussion in JIRA would also be
> an
> > >> > option
> > >> > >> > IMO
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> For (2), let us come up with few examples on
> > what
> > >> > >> > >> > constitutes a
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> feature
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> that needs a design doc, and what should be
> in
> > >> the
> > >> > doc
> > >> > >> > (IMO
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> architecture/general approach, components
> > >> touched,
> > >> > >> > >> interfaces
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> changed)
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Fabian
> > Hueske <
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> fhueske@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everybody,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess we all have noticed that the Flink
> > >> > community
> > >> > >> is
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> quickly
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> growing
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> and
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> more and more contributions are coming in.
> > >> > Recently,
> > >> > >> a
> > >> > >> > few
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> contributions
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> proposed new features without being
> > discussed on
> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > >> mailing
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> list.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Some
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> of
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> these contributions were not accepted in
> the
> > >> end.
> > >> > In
> > >> > >> > other
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> cases,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> pull
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> requests had to be heavily reworked because
> > the
> > >> > >> > approach
> > >> > >> > >> > taken
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> was
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> not
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> best one. These are situations which should
> > be
> > >> > >> avoided
> > >> > >> > >> > because
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> both
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> contributor as well as the person who
> > reviewed
> > >> the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> contribution
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> invested
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> a
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> lot of time for nothing.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I had a look at our “How to contribute” and
> > >> > “Coding
> > >> > >> > >> > guideline”
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> pages
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> and
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> think, we can improve them. I see basically
> > two
> > >> > >> issues:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. The documents do not explain how to
> > propose
> > >> and
> > >> > >> > discuss
> > >> > >> > >> > new
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> features
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> and improvements.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. The documents are quite technical and
> the
> > >> > >> structure
> > >> > >> > >> could
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> be
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> improved,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> IMO.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to improve these pages and
> > propose
> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > >> > following
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> additions:
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Request contributors and committers to
> > start
> > >> > >> > >> discussions
> > >> > >> > >> > on
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> the
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> mailing list for new features. This
> > discussion
> > >> > should
> > >> > >> > help
> > >> > >> > >> > to
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> figure
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> out
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> whether such a new feature is a good fit
> for
> > >> Flink
> > >> > >> and
> > >> > >> > >> give
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> first
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> pointers
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> for a design to implement it.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Require contributors and committers to
> > write
> > >> > >> design
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> documents for
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> all
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> new features and major improvements. These
> > >> > documents
> > >> > >> > >> should
> > >> > >> > >> > be
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> attached
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> to
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> a JIRA issue and follow a template which
> > needs
> > >> to
> > >> > be
> > >> > >> > >> > defined.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Extend the “Coding Style Guides” and add
> > >> > patterns
> > >> > >> > that
> > >> > >> > >> > are
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> commonly
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> remarked in pull requests.
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Restructure the current pages into three
> > >> > pages: a
> > >> > >> > >> general
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >> guide
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> for
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> contributions and two guides for how to
> > >> > contribute to
> > >> > >> > code
> > >> > >> > >> > and
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> website
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> with
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> all technical issues (repository, IDE
> setup,
> > >> build
> > >> > >> > system,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> etc.)
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Looking forward for your comments,
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Fabian
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

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