geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Udo Kohlmeyer <...@apache.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking merge button in PR
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:45:28 GMT
All committers have to right to commit and all committers have the right 
to revert.

It is ALL for the good of the project. Now, of course, I imagine we 
won't apply scorched earth policies, but every committers should feel 
empowered to be able to revert a bad merge, if it hindering the progress 
and health of the project.

Of course, contacting the original committer to revert the merge, is 
preferable, but sometimes things take too long and a kindly worded email 
to the committer, letting them know the merge was reverted and for what 
reason is all that is really required in the end.

--Udo

On 10/21/19 10:41 AM, Owen Nichols wrote:
> One perspective to consider is, should anyone be able to revert a bad commit, or only
the original committer?  If we feel individual ownership of commits, we might hesitate to
revert someone else’s commit, even if it broke the build.  However if we feel a strong sense
of community, we might be ok with an anyone-can-revert policy.  A revert does not have to
imply shaming...
>
>
>> On Oct 21, 2019, at 10:30 AM, Robert Houghton <rhoughton@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>> @Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlmeyer@pivotal.io> What, if anything, do you propose we
>> do to help keep our project building and running cleanly that does not
>> force punitive or coercive behavior on our developers? "Naming names" or
>> "shaming" are not popular choices, and everyone on the comitters list
>> *should* follow procedure, but doesn't.
>>
>> What would you do?
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:18 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I must agree with @Karen here..
>>>
>>> All committers are trusted to do the right thing. One of those things is
>>> to commit (or not commit) PR's.
>>>
>>> Now we are discussing disabling the button when tests are failing. Why
>>> stop there? Why not, that the submitter of the said commit does not get
>>> to merge their own PR?
>>>
>>> Now, that of course is taking it to the extreme, that we don't want (at
>>> least I don't want to be THAT over prescriptive).. So why do we want to
>>> now limit when I can merge? It remains the committers responsibility to
>>> merge commits into the project, that are of the expected quality. IF it
>>> so happens that one, by accident, has merged a PR before it was green,
>>> revert it. All committers have the power to do so.
>>>
>>> So from my perspective, a -1 on disabling the Merge button, just because
>>> someone was not careful in merging and without following our protocol of
>>> waiting for an "All green".
>>>
>>> --Udo
>>>
>>> On 10/21/19 10:11 AM, Ernest Burghardt wrote:
>>>> +1 to enacting this immediately... just this weekend a PR was merged with
>>>> failures on all of the following:
>>>> * concourse-ci/DistributedTestOpenJDK11 * Concourse CI build failure
>>>> * concourse-ci/UnitTestOpenJDK11 * Concourse CI build failure
>>>> * concourse-ci/UnitTestOpenJDK8 * Concourse CI build failure
>>>> * concourse-ci/UpgradeTestOpenJDK11 * Concourse CI build failure
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> EB
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:01 AM Karen Miller <kmiller@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> I have (more than once) committed docs changes for typo fixes without
>>>>> review.  I generally label the commits
>>>>> with a bold "Commit then Review" message.  But, I am bringing this up
>>> as I
>>>>> have purposely not followed what
>>>>> looks to be a positively-received proposed policy, since I have not
>>> gotten
>>>>> reviews. If all feel that we need a
>>>>> rule for everyone to follow (instead of a guideline that PRs shall have
>>> at
>>>>> least 1 review), I will follow the rule,
>>>>> but I'm a -0 on the process. I get it, and I understand its purpose and
>>>>> intent, but I personally prefer to trust that each
>>>>> comitter takes personal responsibility for the code they commit WRT
>>> waiting
>>>>> for tests and/or obtaining reviews.
>>>>> Karen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 6:24 AM Joris Melchior <jmelchior@pivotal.io>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to the revised approach. I think requiring at least one review
is
>>>>>> important. More eyes make for better code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers, Joris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:11 AM Ju@N <jujoramos@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +10 to Naba's proposal, it seems the right thing to do and will
help
>>> us
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> prevent accidentally breaking *develop* while keeping focus on
people
>>>>>>> instead of processes.
>>>>>>> I'd add, however, that the *Merge Pull Request* button should
remain
>>>>>>> disabled until *all CIs have finished*, and only enable it once
the
>>>>>> *Build,
>>>>>>> Unit, Stress Tests and LGTM are green *(that is, force the committer
>>> to
>>>>>>> wait at least until all CIs are done)*. *I also agree in that
that we
>>>>>>> should require *at least one* official approval.
>>>>>>> Cheers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Joris Melchior *
>>>>>> CF Engineering
>>>>>> Pivotal Toronto
>>>>>> 416 877 5427
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
for
>>>>>> machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*
>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson>
>>>>>>

Mime
View raw message