flink-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (FLINK-7263) Improve Pull Request Template
Date Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:37:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7263?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16099973#comment-16099973

ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-7263:

Github user StephanEwen commented on the issue:

    ## Discussion points so far
      - Is the text to verbose and should it be moved to the "how to contribute" section?
         - pro: less text in the template
         - con: "how to contribute" is frequently not read, text in the template only relevant
for first time contributors (who we want to read it) and does not hurt repeated contributors
(can simply skip/scroll over text)
      - Improve the sample texts (currently too much oriented at low level contributions)
      - Checkboxes versus *yes / no / don't know*
         - pro: check boxes are visually nicer
         - con: markdown checkboxes may be confusing to users, unchecked boxes are hard to
distinguish between 'no' and 'did not know what to do'. Explicitly having *don't know* makes
it clearer for contributors to not just skip that question when they are unsure. Seems more
intuitive to allow for free text answers as well (if neither option works)

> Improve Pull Request Template
> -----------------------------
>                 Key: FLINK-7263
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7263
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Documentation
>            Reporter: Stephan Ewen
>            Assignee: Stephan Ewen
> As discussed in the mailing list, the suggestion is to update the pull request template
as follows:
> *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
>   - 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

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message