ranger-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zsombor <gzsom...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Patches with trivial changes
Date Wed, 24 May 2017 11:31:20 GMT
Instead of discouraging contributions, the project should ease the
contribution - and also the review process.
The current JIRA + Reviewboard infrastructure needs a lot's of unnecessary
manual steps, which hurts everyone who wants to help.
 Currently, the contributor needs to do the following, after they have a
working commit in their git repository
1, open a jira ticket
2, generate a patch from git
2, create a review boad request, uploading the patch to it
3, upload the patch to jira
4, if something is not correct, they have to repeat 2-3.

Similarly, for the reviewer, he has to manually download, apply, and run
the tests locally, even when he thinks the patch is ok.

My suggestion is to switch to a pull request based workflow, where the
manual patch creation, upload-download process could be omitted, and travis
or some other automatic build service should be introduced, to ensure, that
the base sanity tests are not omitted accidentally.
 With this process, a commiter could review and approve a trivial commits
in less than a minute.

Is there any particular reason, why the current workflow used as is ?

Regards,
 Zsombor


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Gautam Borad <gborad@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for Madhan's recommendations,
>
> Colm, I agree that we should not discourage new contributions. However, I
> think, we should also not encourage such single line/whitespace
> contributions. We want contributors who can do more functionals/feature
> changes and while doing that they can also fix the trivial issues
> (whitespace etc)
>
> Since each contribution to Ranger requires creating Jira/RR, if we start
> having lot of such trivial contributions, the community will be overwhelmed
> with activities(mails etc) like this and that can lead to ignoring of a
> real functional change, when it comes.
>
> In fact, the Apache page on Contributors itself says :
>
> "Being a contributor simply means that you take an interest in the project
> and contribute in some way, ranging from asking sensible questions (which
> documents the project and provides feedback to developers) through to
> providing *new features* as patches."
>
>
> So yes, we should encourage contributors, but encourage them to try and
> understand Ranger and add more features/functionalities and eventually
> "earn" the title of a committer. Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Colm O hEigeartaigh <coheigea@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Madhan,
> >
> > Trivial commits provide a path to get new contributors on board to the
> > project - something that the project needs IMO. Yes it may make
> backporting
> > fixes a little more difficult, but it's hardly an intractable problem to
> > figure out some whitespace changes between branches - it's not as if
> Ranger
> > is a particularly large project.
> >
> > Having said that I agree that some of the very trivial patches could
> maybe
> > be consolidated a bit more. I will encourage future review requests that
> > have a very trivial spelling fix to hold on to the fix for a while, so
> that
> > we can fix multiple spelling fixes etc. at the same time.
> >
> > Colm.
> >
> > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Madhan Neethiraj <madhan@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I notice a number of recent patches address trivial issues like white
> > > space, spelling mistakes (one patch just changed a single letter in a
> > > label). And few other patches update a large number of files for
> > > trivial/non-functional changes – like whitespaces. I strongly suggest
> we
> > > refrain from authoring/encouraging such patches – for many reasons. One
> > of
> > > the main reasons is the overhead such updates add in backporting
> > > real/critical fixes (that would come later) to other branches, as these
> > > changes might force dealing with merge conflicts.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since the changes introduced in such patches are not essential, I would
> > > suggest to take these up when these source files are updated for other
> > > functional fixes. I would greatly appreciate if the patches focus on
> > > fixing/enhancing Ranger functionality; this would be benefit the
> > community
> > > immensely.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Madhan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Colm O hEigeartaigh
> >
> > Talend Community Coder
> > http://coders.talend.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Gautam.
>

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