ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Atri Sharma <atri.j...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Jira Process
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:49:32 GMT
I totally agree on this one.

In PostgreSQL, every committer's major changes are normally reviewed by
somebody else before the committer pushes the patch. However, for trivial
patches, committer normally puts post on developer list stating his changes
and gives a timeline by which he/she will commit patch and objections need
to come before that. Giving a day for such patches should be fine, IMO.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I second.
> >
> > It's up to the community to go CTR or RTC but former has a way more
> > flexibility and way speedier. Esp. considering that Ignite has great and
> > functional CI in place. We are trying to get CTR running in Bigtop, but
> > getting blocked by comprehensive CI being not ready yet.
> >
>
> The process in Ignite is that all committers work in separate branches.
> Committers are free to commit into their branch as often as required.
> However, the process that I prefer is that a review by another committer
> must happen before a final merge to the master takes place.
>
> In my experience, I have seen the simplest of the commits break builds or
> make wrong assumptions.
>
>
> > Please consider the consequences of the decision you're about to make.
> >
>
> I was hoping to arrive to a decision as a result of this discussion.
>
>
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On July 26, 2015 11:13:40 PM PDT, "Branko ─îibej" <brane@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >On 27.07.2015 07:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Branko ─îibej <brane@apache.org>
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 27.07.2015 07:04, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > >>>> Igniters,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I believe several very valid points have been made on the general@
> > >list
> > >>>> about our Jira handling, and how we should improve our Jira
> > >process.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have tried to outline the Jira Process we should follow on our
> > >Wiki:
> > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Jira+Process
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please review and provide comments. Let's try to finalize it within
> > >the
> > >>>> next couple of days.
> > >>> This describes a commit-then-review process. This is absolutely not
> > >what
> > >>> you want. There is no need to ask for patch review before
> > >committing;
> > >>> this should happen after commit. The only case where the ticket
> > >review
> > >>> stage makes sense is when someone who is not a committer is writing
> > >the
> > >>> patch; or when the committer feels she needs extra eyes on the
> > >change.
> > >>>
> > >> Brane, I am not sure if I understood you correctly. The process that
> > >I
> > >> would like to see in Ignite is that absolutely every ticket undergoes
> > >a
> > >> review process before it gets merged to the main master branch,
> > >regardless
> > >> of whether it is done by a committer or not.
> > >>
> > >> Are you suggesting that the review process for committers should be
> > >> optional?
> > >
> > >Yes of course. The default process for making changes should be:
> > >commit,
> > >then review (CTR). This means that any committer can make any change
> > >without asking for a review first, and other committers review the
> > >changes after the commit.
> > >
> > >What you're proposing is the review, then commit (RTC) process, which
> > >a)
> > >implies that you don't trust committers even for trivial changes, b)
> > >slows down development and c) IMO is contrary to the spirit of open
> > >source. A committer should know when a change really needs review
> > >before
> > >committing, otherwise you shouldn't have made her a committer in the
> > >first place.
> > >
> > >My point in that discussion thread is that you guys are using Jira far
> > >too much for trivial stuff. It's a waste of time and resources to go
> > >through all the Jira steps for simple changes; instead, you should
> > >learn
> > >to write descriptive commit log messages and use Jira only for tracking
> > >large changes or bugs that can't be addressed immediately.
> > >
> > >
> > >As it stands, you're proposing to change an open development process
> > >into a bureaucratic nightmare. Please don't.
> > >
> > >-- Brane
> >
>



-- 
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

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