incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] a git workflow based on @dev
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:26:17 GMT
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb-admin.git


On 2 April 2013 20:08, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
NS

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