From dev-return-16391-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@nifi.apache.org Thu Feb 1 15:31:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56FD2180652 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:31:15 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 478A1160C44; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D8B6160C26 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:31:14 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 80949 invoked by uid 500); 1 Feb 2018 14:31:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@nifi.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@nifi.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@nifi.apache.org Received: (qmail 80937 invoked by uid 99); 1 Feb 2018 14:31:12 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:31:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 62170C0558 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:31:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.879 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yP6rumfHMk-l for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com (mail-oi0-f45.google.com [209.85.218.45]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id D0B805F2C5 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:31:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 4so13470154ois.10 for ; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:31:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=oDyFAoFmz2TBfOw9FQ/F15hC7eZCadrTYjcevKoDrec=; b=RVJPnZWlSLcSkUZJhr0bRlRvn9+R/aMvJVW4YIlHPMqzzNxY6QvRW66a8k7FEpXtNa B8SKT647SnsItCHTYMJZC0DeIJhjQ6qIZL/Wwf05NgaPfYDTLl7O7/l+oMgX8Hm93nki 9SBQ4XM2XWSjE9jYvqcGgBsz+n3hp1uF+tLEbSYoiV1OG4ZVb3jo4tqckgcmAM6HWNtd 5Z0Nf0/asq3Yhf4/bACaMszinABbrY50xFZp/0Fzs14++l0oA5lANyp5gHdpG4uB4LSh g+pNrKWf5jjyuvqGmxCJA2hIuRvmnuEMgOXBLVqoT6uqWpuYleqi3BLBOJcoDB1YLRoF sdJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=oDyFAoFmz2TBfOw9FQ/F15hC7eZCadrTYjcevKoDrec=; b=aoJh090qKnXd9ZlFGg0ONqj9OB5jAypIpocLCWSZnGgkGCKToktGhR74Jo67Miq+Uo ulxvcFINbaauIsdESXZgc+uBQz6O91V7e5Kw5A2qf9yemoMg3ewsJ0e13Z/03Lavj39S VTH4+PxIhS53MCgjtQS0Rf5yta9tI103SMH/fjCyTUb/+SzYPRvLpLh6a1pmpJYs8SOR ecD+WUA+nF4RGhcQBvVgFFd6yEOL8wdkxt1MhubvPqIJ2EfQnaBV069bahMx7aM8UpaG ciWgFEw/13q2fotTDyyXlUAVJBNZnrJFctJi1eCtbxxGwiWO+QKMX9Zq+fyczBLbDGdl xrSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfkEXamSsud1OBcIMVtKs/hg19nwdg0Aubm7H0SVGFfXcZQFWSZ +VBR50BRnXyKA3wgbfIYpmxXIPtPyA3VDaPuROY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226zwbXABP+dHIM/vwIz8/Dywbr8VSxODkHetSXDnxsk7v7Ha6/AI83swFa2+uyhLhNxevxwaPaCvZuIGOSUGyM= X-Received: by 10.202.185.70 with SMTP id j67mr6041476oif.285.1517495465885; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:31:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.73.130 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 06:31:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Mike Thomsen Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:31:05 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Addressing Lingering Pull Requests To: dev@nifi.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cceea3146010564277262" --001a113cceea3146010564277262 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" It looks like there are at least 10 new processors and services in the backlog, and quite a few modifications to existing ones. Something I think would really help here is to expand the scope of requirements for submitting a new processor for code review to include: 1. docker-compose file that sets up a complete development environment w/ appropriate port mappings that just work when used with NiFi running outside of Docker on the reviewer's machine. 2. A sample flow, a really KISS example w/ GenerateFlowFile or something that spits out a query or sample that can let the reviewer really see the submitter's idea of what the input should look like. Whether those are stored on a Wiki or in the Git repo doesn't really matter. I think submitting those artifacts will really reduce the burden of quickly going from "LGTM, JUnits seem to run" to "OK, I see it actually running as expected." On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:38 AM, James Wing wrote: > This is a great idea, Mark, thanks for proposing it. 30 days after last > review comment seems like a good, enforceable standard. > > James > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Mark Payne wrote: > > > All, > > > > We do from time to time go through the backlog of PR's that need to be > > reviewed and > > start a "cleansing" process, closing out any old PR's that appear to have > > stalled out. > > When we do this, though, we typically will start sending out e-mails > > asking if there are > > any stalled PR's that we shouldn't close and start trying to decipher > > which ones are okay > > to close out and which ones are not. This puts quite an onus on the > > committer who is > > trying to clean this up. It also can result in having a large number of > > outstanding Pull Requests, > > which I believe makes the community look bad because it gives the > > appearance that we are > > not doing a good job of being responsive to Pull Requests that are > > submitted. > > > > I would like to propose that we set a new "standard" that is: if we have > > any Pull Request > > that has been stalled (and by "stalled" I mean a committer has reviewed > > the PR and did > > not merge but asked for clarifications or modifications and the > > contributor has not pushed > > any new commit or responded to the comments) for at least 30 days, that > we > > go ahead > > and close the Pull Request (after commenting on the PR that it is being > > closed due to a lack > > of activity and that the contributor is more than welcome to open a new > PR > > if necessary). > > > > I feel like this gives contributors enough time to address concerns and > it > > is simple enough > > to create a new Pull Request if the need arises. Alternatively, if the > > contributor realizes that > > they need more time, they can simply comment on the PR that they are > still > > interested in > > working on it but just need more time, and the simple act of commenting > > will mean that the > > PR is no longer stalled, as defined above. > > > > Any thoughts on such a proposal? Any better alternatives that people have > > in mind? > > > > Thanks > > -Mark > --001a113cceea3146010564277262--