ambari-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vivek Ratnavel <vivekratna...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Future code review and commit process
Date Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:58:38 GMT
+1 to open a new pull request.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan Hurley <jhurley@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> My vote would be to open a new pull request - if anything just to get more
> practice. Even if you already have +1's, it's good to open it and reference
> the reviewboard.
>
> On Jan 8, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Attila Doroszlai <adoroszlai@hortonworks.com<
> mailto:adoroszlai@hortonworks.com>> wrote:
>
> Is there a policy for pending review requests (ie. the ones already open
> at https://reviews.apache.org/groups/Ambari/ )?  Should we open a PR for
> each, or should they be wrapped up on Review Board, or is it up to us?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Attila
>
> From: Vivek Ratnavel <vivekratnavel@apache.org<mailto:
> vivekratnavel@apache.org><mailto:vivekratnavel@apache.org>>
> Reply-To: "dev@ambari.apache.org<mailto:dev@ambari.apache.org><mailto:
> dev@ambari.apache.org>" <dev@ambari.apache.org<mailto:
> dev@ambari.apache.org><mailto:dev@ambari.apache.org>>
> Date: Friday, January 5, 2018 at 12:16 AM
> To: "dev@ambari.apache.org<mailto:dev@ambari.apache.org><mailto:
> dev@ambari.apache.org>" <dev@ambari.apache.org<mailto:
> dev@ambari.apache.org><mailto:dev@ambari.apache.org>>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Future code review and commit process
>
> Further clarifications:
>
> - Creating the fork
> https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/
>
> - Creating a branch for every commit (and creating the pull request)
> https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-from-a-fork/
>
> - How to keep your fork in-sync with the upstream repository
>
> https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/
>
> - How long-lived Apache feature branches will work in this model. In this
> case, we'd still need a branch off of the feature branch for every commit
> from the fork.
>
> In this workflow, a feature branch is no different than any other branch.
> If you want a commit to land in a branch, then you create a new branch
> based off that branch. You create multiple branches if you want your
> commits to land in multiple branches. It might sound like a daunting task
> initially, but believe me, its very easy and straightforward to create a
> branch and open pull requests for review. And once a pull request is
> opened, you can make changes by simply pushing commits to the same branch.
>
> - How to merge long-lived feature branches into Apache
>
> Feature branches or any other branch could be merged with trunk or any
> branch by creating a new pull request. A new pull request could be opened
> by selecting two branches - a base branch and a head branch. In this case,
> if you want to merge a feature branch with trunk, then you select feature
> branch as base branch and trunk as head branch.
>
> I have attached a screen-shot for reference.
>
> [cid:ii_jc13wnyl0_160c3724ae47072e]
>
>
> I agree with you on creating a wiki page to cover all the scenarios.
>
> ​
> Thanks,
> Vivek Ratnavel
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Jonathan Hurley <jhurley@hortonworks.com<
> mailto:jhurley@hortonworks.com><mailto:jhurley@hortonworks.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarifications. This sounds like the "Forking Workflow" as
> opposed to the "Feature Branch Workflow". I'm fine with that since it lets
> non-commiters help.
>
> We should try to capture all of these scenarios in a wiki page which we
> can then all agree upon. Things which we need to cover are:
>
> - Creating the fork
> - Creating a branch for every commit (and creating the pull request)
> - How to keep your fork in-sync with the upstream repository
> - How long-lived Apache feature branches will work in this model. In this
> case, we'd still need a branch off of the feature branch for every commit
> from the fork.
> - How to merge long-lived feature branches into Apache
>
> A few of the items above haven't been specified yet - like keeping the
> forked repo in sync and how to manage long-lived feature branches in Apache.
>
> I still do not think we need [component-1][component-2] in the commit
> message. We can use the fields in Apache Jira for this. It makes our commit
> messages long, hard to read, and ugly.
>
> On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:57 PM, Vivek Ratnavel <vivekratnavel@apache.org<
> mailto:vivekratnavel@apache.org><mailto:vivekratnavel@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Let me clarify a few things here.
>
>
>  - Before opening any pull requests, one needs to fork
>  https://github.com/apache/ambari. This is a one time process.
>  - Before working on any JIRA, lets say AMBARI-12345, one needs to create
>  a branch from their own fork. Everyone can have their own naming
>  conventions to name this branch since this is not going to affect the
>  public repository in any way.
>  - To answer Nate's question, if a JIRA has to be committed to branch-2.6
>  and trunk, one needs to create two branches from their own fork - a branch
>  based on branch-2.6 and another branch based on trunk. Let's name them
>  AMBARI-12345-branch-2.6 and AMBARI-12345-trunk. Again this could be
>  anything as long as you can differentiate.
>  - After committing patches to both the newly created branches, you need
>  to open two pull requests against two public branches - branch2.6 and
>  trunk. This link should help -
>  https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-from-a-fork/
>  - If there is no conflict, github offers "squash and merge" option which
>  will let you remove unnecessary commit messages and merge any number of
>  commits as one commit. For more info -
>  https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-merges
>
> Hope this clarifies the flow.
>
> To clarify Jonathan's suggestion
>
> * I do not think that adding a [COMPONENT] tag is useful. Many commits span
> ambari-server and ambari-agent, and a good number also span ambari-web and
> ambari-server. I also think that we should have the title of the JIra match
> the commit exactly as we do today.
>
> If a commit spans multiple components, lets say ambari-server and
> ambari-web, the PR title should be [AMBARI-12345][ambari-server][
> ambari-web]
> Title. This is especially useful to categorize the open pull requests based
> on their components, so that other folks working in those components can
> work on clearing those open pull requests.
>
> Please let me know if you need more clarification on anything discussed
> here.
>
> Thanks,
> Vivek Ratnavel
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Nate Cole <ncole@hortonworks.com<mailto:
> ncole@hortonworks.com><mailto:ncole@hortonworks.com>> wrote:
>
> Please also clarify the following scenario:
>
> I’m working on a fix for branch-2.6, and when I’m done, I need to merge to
> trunk.
>
> What is the flow?
> - Create a fork
> - Commit to branch-2.6 (on my fork)
> - Commit to trunk (on my fork)
> - Create pull request to bring changes to both branches?
> Or
> - Create a fork
> - Commit to branch-2.6 (on my fork)
> - Create pull request
> - Commit to trunk (on my fork)
> - Create pull request
>
> This is exposing my git n00bness
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/4/18, 11:32 AM, "Attila Doroszlai" <adoroszlai@hortonworks.com<
> mailto:adoroszlai@hortonworks.com><mailto:adoroszlai@hortonworks.com>>
> wrote:
>
> *   Since this new flow model requires a branch for a commit, we
> should enforce a naming strategy. These short-lived feature branches for
> commits must be easy to find and remove. We should also make the community
> aware that once you have had your pull request merged, you should get rid
> of your branch. As for branch naming conventions, I haven't thought through
> it very much, but perhaps simply the name of the associated JIRA, such as
> AMBARI-12345.
>
>   Correct me if I'm wrong, but the branch to be merged should be created
> in your own fork, not in the apache/ambari repo.  Otherwise non-committers
> would not be able to create pull requests.  I think this eliminates the
> need to coordinate branch naming, although some convention or pattern would
> be helpful anyway.
>
>   -Attila
>
>

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