groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [ANN] New committer: Shil Sinha
Date Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:15:24 GMT
Welcome, good to have you on board!

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:18AM, Shil Sinha wrote:
> Thanks Pascal! The only other question I have is, what's the difference
> between the 2_4_X and 2_4_x branches?
> 
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Pascal Schumacher <pascalschumacher@gmx.net
> > wrote:
> 
> > Welcome Shils! :)
> >
> > Am 20.10.2015 um 22:41 schrieb Shil Sinha:
> >
> >
> > BTW, I think it's still a good idea to use PRs for a short period of time,
> >> so that you can accommodate with our dev process. In particular, how
> >> patches should be applied on master and cherry picked on maintenance
> >> branches.
> >
> >
> > I committed a small change to master and cherry picked it to 2_4_X
> > yesterday, hope that was ok.
> >
> > Yes that was fine. In my opinion you do not need to create a pull request
> > for small changes like this one (
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/commit/d6497413f6e94f9b66e0d2853ef1ac21d00c1f98
> > ).
> >
> > I'll continue using PRs going forward for the time being.
> > As far as merging pull requests, I read through a few of the dev threads
> > from when Groovy migrated to Apache, but couldn't find a definitive
> > workflow. Is that documented anywhere? If not, I can write it as I get
> > familiar.
> >
> > I use
> >
> > git fetch https://github.com/<contributor>/incubator-groovy.git
> > <pull-request-branch>
> > git cherry-pick <commit(s) of the pull request>
> > git commit -a --amend --> to add "(closes #<pull-request-number>) at the
> > end of the title"
> >
> > BTW: I prefer a model where committers are also supposed to go through
> >> pull request / review processes. I believe that does not decrease
> >> productivity, but has a range of beneficial effects. Becoming a
> >> committer should ideally just mean the ability to approve and merge
> >> other people's pull requests/patches.
> >
> >
> > I find this beneficial as well, for code changes. It's a useful way to
> > keep up with the codebase, rather than just browsing commits.
> >
> > I also think this is beneficial for improving quality and spreading
> > knowledge. But the reviews have to be done in a timely manner and at the
> > moment we are to slow to even review pull request (imho). So we use this
> > model only of for very important changes or when are unsure about a change.
> >
> > -Pascal
> >

Mime
View raw message