incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] a git workflow based on @dev
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:08:34 GMT
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> What would this Git repos be for?
>

to start the work on some scripts. Can also be done somewhere in the
repo we already have? What would it be the best according to you?

- benoît
>
> On 2 April 2013 19:59, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cool,
>>
>> Thanks Randall & Noah for the feedback. I think we are all OK to start
>> to  work on that then. Randall can you provide a link for the tool you
>> mention in the cassandra project? I would be interested by them.
>>
>>
>> To start all the process I will open a git repo somewhere so we can
>> start to hack all together. Not until the end of the week i'm actually
>> busy at work.
>>
>> - benoît
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Your proposal looks good Benoit. I'd be happy to see us work towards
>> this.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 29 March 2013 22:17, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I should have posted it since a while but was side tracked by work
and
>> >> > travel. Anyway here is a workflow I had in mind since a long time.
>> It's
>> >> not
>> >> > here to forbid the use of Github PR or system like one. On the
>> contrary
>> >> it is
>> >> > trying to find a way to work with them while keeping the @dev
>> >> mailing-list as
>> >> > the first citizen. This is just a proposal. If there are any legal
or
>> >> > technical constraints that seem to stop it then let me know in
>> response
>> >> to
>> >> > this thread as well.
>> >> >
>> >> > Git has been designed from the ground to work with email and many
>> >> commands
>> >> > inside git are just here for that: git-format-patch(1), git-apply(1),
>> >> git-am(1),
>> >> > git-send-email(1). It's really easy to send a patch via email and test
>> >> it on
>> >> > any source code. I would like to use this feature as the core
>> component
>> >> of
>> >> > our workflow.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. I love these. It is my preferred workflow. I even have tools that
>> >> I snagged from the Cassandra project for sending patche to JIRA from
>> >> the command line using these tools. I believe I linked them somewhere
>> >> on the wiki, but I can document this better if other people have an
>> >> interest.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Today we are using 2 main tools in the Apache CouchDB project: Jida
>> and
>> >> > the mailing lists. We also have a github mirror. I didn't have the
>> time
>> >> to
>> >> > test the review tool we have, and if someone did I would be happy to
>> >> have a
>> >> > feedback on its usage.
>> >> >
>> >> > So what I propose as main workflow is this one:
>> >> >
>> >> > - The main git repo centralize features & fixes which have a ticket
in
>> >> Jira,
>> >> >   also master & release branches. We probably need a develop branch
>> for
>> >> C-I
>> >> >   where fix/features branches should land before going in master or
>> >> releases
>> >> >   branches but that's another topic.
>> >> > - Patches should be sent and discussed on the mailing-list. So anyone
>> >> susbcribed
>> >> >   on the mailing-list can comment them and update the thread with new
>> >> patches.
>> >> > - Once a patch has been reviewed or lazily reviewed (ie. after a time,
>> >> noone
>> >> >   responded), a developer commit it on a branch on the main repo.
>> >> > - After a final approval the patch will land in one of the main
>> branches
>> >> >   (release, master, develop).
>> >> >
>> >> > This workflow allows us to keep git decentralized and let small
>> groups or
>> >> > individials to manage the code outside apache while keeping main
>> >> discussions
>> >> > for patch integration on the ml.
>> >>
>> >> +1. Committers have been using branches for this, but it's good to
>> >> have a workflow where others can have branches. The email (or) JIRA
>> >> workflow, when it's well tooled with git, gives everyone this ability
>> >> by making it easy to contribute what they've done in their local
>> >> branches. Github is merely a place to post those branches, but if the
>> >> patches contained therein can hit us another way, like JIRA or ML,
>> >> that's a win.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > What about JIRA:
>> >> > ----------------
>> >> >
>> >> > - If a patch is answering to an issue in JIRA, it *must* link to it
in
>> >> using a
>> >> >   syntax
>> >> > - Each response could be eventually appended to the JIRA ticket, but
>> >> maybe we
>> >> >   could just link the mailing list thread?
>> >>
>> >> Getting COUCHDB-XXXX mentions in the ML linked like trackbacks in JIRA
>> >> would be outstanding. If we also had Github pull requests going to the
>> >> dev list people could even transitively contribute to JIRA via pull
>> >> requests.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > What about GITHUB Pull Requests:
>> >> > --------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > Since we have a mirror on github, I'm kinda agree with Noah that we
>> can't
>> >> > really forbid the use of PR. Especially since most want it.
>> >> >
>> >> > In my understanding and reading the Github API [1], PRs are some kind
>> of
>> >> > patches. As a patch they could be hooked to the ML.
>> >> >
>> >> > The proposed workflow for PR is:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. When creating a PR a thread is created on the ML
>> >> > 2. Each new patch to the PR is sent to the ML
>> >> > 3. Any new comment on the PR is sent to the ML
>> >> > 4. Any comment on the ML is sent to the PR. We could find a syntax
as
>> >> well to
>> >> > annotate a line just like github does.
>> >> > 5. Any patches sent to this ml thread is also added to the PR.
>> >>
>> >> Perfect. This is what I've been thinking, too. I suspect everyone
>> >> would find this a fantastic situation if we can work it technically.
>> >>
>> >> > I reckon this workflow imply some work to handle PR notifications or
>> Jira
>> >> > integration, but at the end I think it's a win-win solution preserving
>> >> our
>> >> > neutrality while opening ourself to others. I'm happy to help on that
>> >> work. I
>> >> > will probably also need the help of @davisp since he knows more about
>> the
>> >> > Apache Foundation internals than me.
>> >>
>> >> I'm also happy to help. If we lay out the individual scripts needed I
>> >> can work on some of them.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyway let me know what you think about it.
>> >> >
>> >> > - benoît
>> >>
>> >> I think it's great. Thanks for bringing this thread.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > NS
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS

Mime
View raw message