zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com>
Subject Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.
Date Tue, 05 Mar 2019 18:00:21 GMT
Even on "trivial" changes having a Jira is very useful. Jira issues show up in Release Notes
and when end users search for problems/solutions. Even a trivial change may be important to
some user of ZooKeeper who might want to be able to check Jira to see when/why something happened.

-JZ

> On Mar 5, 2019, at 4:16 AM, Justin Ling Mao <maoling199210191@sina.com> wrote:
> 
> agree with this from Brian Nixon.--->"For trivial changes like spelling, whitespace,
pruning of import, does itmake sense to have one super/umbrella ticket with multiple PRs attached"
> ----- Original Message -----From: Brian Nixon <brian.nixon.cs@gmail.com>
> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.
> Date: 2019-03-05 05:54
> 
> I like having JIRAs for all changes because it allows one to track all the
> changes to given components through the JIRA web interface and it forces
> the contributor to spend some time upfront making sure their change is a
> single coherent unit.
> For trivial changes like spelling, whitespace, pruning of import, does it
> make sense to have one super/umbrella ticket with multiple PRs attached?
> -Brian
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:04 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that having a JIRA makes it simpler to create release notes and
>> track bugfixes/new features.
>> Trivial changes, like typos are not worth a JIRA.
>> 
>> My 2 cents
>> Enrico
>> 
>> Il mer 27 feb 2019, 17:57 Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> ha scritto:
>> 
>>> Yea, the commit I just did was a single missing space so no big deal.
>>> Jordan's link is to curator current policy which seems very similar to
>>> ours.
>>> 
>>> I know what current state is. My question though is what do people think?
>>> Stay with the current mechanism or move to something else? Staying put is
>>> fine, I just wanted to review given it's been a while (10+ years!) since
>> we
>>> last considered this and with github/gitbox and time baselines have
>> changed
>>> considerably over that time.
>>> 
>>> Patrick
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:44 AM Andor Molnar <andor@cloudera.com.invalid
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> There were a few typo/language/cosmetic related patches which were so
>>> small
>>>> that we've decided it's probably not worth the effort to create a Jira
>>> for
>>>> every one of them.
>>>> Similarly, I haven't created Jiras for issues that were found in
>> release
>>>> candidates.
>>>> 
>>>> Other than this we generally still don't accept patches without Jira
>>> ticket
>>>> and properly formatted title / commit message.
>>>> 
>>>> Andor
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:38 PM Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated
>> JIRA.
>>>> Now
>>>>> with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs)
>> that
>>>>> don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
>>>>> didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the
>> recent
>>>> move
>>>>> to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm
>>>> wondering
>>>>> if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on
>>> another
>>>>> Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message