flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] A more thorough Pull Request check list and template
Date Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:55:32 GMT
@Eron Review timeliness would be great to improve.

Some observation from the past year:
There were periods where some components in Flink were making slow progress
because all committers knowledgeable in those components were busy handling
pull requests that were opened against those components, but were not in
good shape, were adding not discussed designs, etc.

I think the only way to ensure timely handling of pull requests is to be
very strict in the handling. For example any non-trivial change needs prior
discussion, agreement that this should be fixed now, and an agreed upon
design doc. Otherwise the PR is not considered and simply rejected. Same
for presence of docs, proper tests, ...

But, I fear that introducing such strictness will scare off many in the
community. So I would be very reluctant to do this.
After all, many pull requests do bring in a good piece of perspective, at
least, even if the code is not immediately suited for contribution...


On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Eron Wright <eronwright@gmail.com> wrote:

> This seems like a good step in establishing a better PR process.  I believe
> the process could be improved to ensure timely and targeted review by
> component experts and committers.
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I have reflected a bit on the pull requests and on some of the recent
> > changes to Flink and some of the introduced bugs / regressions that we
> have
> > fixed.
> >
> > One thing that I think would have helped is to have more explicit
> > information about what the pull request does and how the contributor
> would
> > suggest to verify it. I have seen this when contributing to some other
> > project and really liked the approach.
> >
> > It requires that a contributor takes a minute to reflect on what was
> > touched, and what would be ways to verify that the changes work properly.
> > Besides being a help to the reviewer, it also makes contributors aware of
> > what is important during the review process.
> >
> >
> > I suggest a new pull request template, as attached below, with a preview
> > here:
> > https://github.com/StephanEwen/incubator-flink/
> > blob/pr_template/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
> >
> > Don't be scared, it looks long, but a big part is the introductory text
> > (only relevant for new contributors) and the examples contents for the
> > description.
> >
> > Filling this out for code that is in shape should be a quick thing:
> Remove
> > the into and checklist, write a few sentences on what the PR does (one
> > should do that anyways) and then pick some yes/no in the classification
> > section.
> >
> > Curious to hear what you think!
> >
> > Best,
> > Stephan
> >
> >
> > ============================
> >
> > Full suggested pull request template:
> >
> >
> >
> > *Thank you very much for contributing to Apache Flink - we are happy that
> > you want to help us improve Flink. To help the community review you
> > contribution in the best possible way, please go through the checklist
> > below, which will get the contribution into a shape in which it can be
> best
> > reviewed.*
> >
> > *Please understand that we do not do this to make contributions to Flink
> a
> > hassle. In order to uphold a high standard of quality for code
> > contributions, while at the same time managing a large number of
> > contributions, we need contributors to prepare the contributions well,
> and
> > give reviewers enough contextual information for the review. Please also
> > understand that contributions that do not follow this guide will take
> > longer to review and thus typically be picked up with lower priority by
> the
> > community.*
> >
> > ## Contribution Checklist
> >
> >   - Make sure that the pull request corresponds to a [JIRA issue](
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/FLINK/issues). Exceptions are
> made
> > for typos in JavaDoc or documentation files, which need no JIRA issue.
> >
> >   - Name the pull request in the form "[FLINK-1234] [component] Title of
> > the pull request", where *FLINK-1234* should be replaced by the actual
> > issue number. Skip *component* if you are unsure about which is the best
> > component.
> >   Typo fixes that have no associated JIRA issue should be named following
> > this pattern: `[hotfix] [docs] Fix typo in event time introduction` or
> > `[hotfix] [javadocs] Expand JavaDoc for PuncuatedWatermarkGenerator`.
> >
> >   - Fill out the template below to describe the changes contributed by
> the
> > pull request. That will give reviewers the context they need to do the
> > review.
> >
> >   - Make sure that the change passes the automated tests, i.e., `mvn
> clean
> > verify`
> >
> >   - Each pull request should address only one issue, not mix up code from
> > multiple issues.
> >
> >   - Each commit in the pull request has a meaningful commit message
> > (including the JIRA id)
> >
> >   - Once all items of the checklist are addressed, remove the above text
> > and this checklist, leaving only the filled out template below.
> >
> >
> > **(The sections below can be removed for hotfixes of typos)**
> >
> > ## What is the purpose of the change
> >
> > *(For example: This pull request makes task deployment go through the
> blob
> > server, rather than through RPC. That way we avoid re-transferring them
> on
> > each deployment (during recovery).)*
> >
> >
> > ## Brief change log
> >
> > *(for example:)*
> >   - *The TaskInfo is stored in the blob store on job creation time as a
> > persistent artifact*
> >   - *Deployments RPC transmits only the blob storage reference*
> >   - *TaskManagers retrieve the TaskInfo from the blob cache*
> >
> >
> > ## Verifying this change
> >
> > *(Please pick either of the following options)*
> >
> > This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.
> >
> > *(or)*
> >
> > This change is already covered by existing tests, such as *(please
> describe
> > tests)*.
> >
> > *(or)*
> >
> > This change added tests and can be verified as follows:
> >
> > *(example:)*
> >   - *Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large
> payloads
> > (100MB)*
> >   - *Extended integration test for recovery after master (JobManager)
> > failure*
> >   - *Added test that validates that TaskInfo is transferred only once
> > across recoveries*
> >   - *Manually verified the change by running a 4 node cluser with 2
> > JobManagers and 4 TaskManagers, a stateful streaming program, and killing
> > one JobManager and to TaskManagers during the execution, verifying that
> > recovery happens correctly.*
> >
> > ## Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
> >
> >   - Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): **(yes / no)**
> >   - The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with
> > `@Public(Evolving)`: **(yes / no)**
> >   - The serializers: **(yes / no / don't know)**
> >   - The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): **(yes /
> no
> > / don't know)**
> >   - Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its
> > components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: **(yes / no / don't
> > know)**:
> >
> > ## Documentation
> >
> >   - Does this pull request introduce a new feature? **(yes / no)**
> >   - If yes, how is the feature documented? **(not applicable / docs /
> > JavaDocs / not documented)**
> >
>

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