phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: best development methodology for Apache git?
Date Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:04:00 GMT
Gerrit sounds ideal, but is it an option?


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is why I brought up Gerrit. It provides both a means for visually
> reviewing patches (à la Github pull requests, Review Board) and provides
> the means to gate commits against the single source of truth according to
> the project guidelines, whatever they may be.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > In what format is the patch given to you? Is it (or can it be) a
> git-diff?
> > And how do you visually apply the patch so that you can see it in the
> > context of the code (when you're evaluating it)?
> >
> > Our source-of-truth and record-of-what-happened is the Apache git repo.
> It
> > would be nice if we could associate the committed SHAs with the JIRA
> > (ideally in some automated way).
> >
> > Using review board sounds promising if it can be driven off of the
> > git-diff.
> >
> > Seems like with a minimal amount of tooling, we could have a pretty good
> > story. I think I'll ask on the general list, as other projects have gone
> > through this transition already - maybe they have tooling that could be
> > leveraged?
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:24 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a bit late to this party. In fact I asked James the exact same
> thing
> > > offline and missed that the discussion is already going on.
> > >
> > > It seems we should start with doing this the "HBase-way". I.e. make
> > > patches, attach then to the jira.
> > > That way the jira/Apache-git is a full record of what happened and we
> do
> > > not rely to two copies of the source (Apache and GitHub), of which one
> > > might be behind.
> > >
> > > That leaves some power of git untapped (that even an oldfart like me is
> > > beginning to appreciate), and we should probably address that into the
> > > future.
> > >
> > > So I'd vote for (1) patches on jira, (2) reviews on review board when
> > > needed, (3) no mandatory git hub involvement.
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >  From: James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
> > > To: "dev@phoenix.incubator.apache.org" <
> dev@phoenix.incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:47 PM
> > > Subject: best development methodology for Apache git?
> > >
> > >
> > > I know you HBase guys use svn as your source of truth, but Phoenix is
> > using
> > > git. With our old git repo which was hosted on github, we'd typically
> do
> > > work locally and then send a pull request to the source-of-truth github
> > > repo. That way others could comment on the pending commit before it was
> > > pulled in. Pulling it in could be done with a single click by someone
> > with
> > > write privileges.
> > >
> > > Now, though, our source-of-truth is *not* on github, but on a git repo
> > > hosted by Apache. It's only mirrored to github in a read-only manner.
> > Plus,
> > > it may be lagging behind the source-of-truth repo.
> > >
> > > What's the best, recommended methodology and ui to use for getting
> > >  feedback
> > > pre-commit?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > James
> > >
> >
>

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