+1, I think that covers it really well Daniel. It encourages people to
have large changes reviewed but doesn't mandate it.
Andy
On 10/06/15 01:22, Daniel Kulp wrote:
I guess if it was up to me to actually write a formal doc describing the
process it would go something like:
———————
ActiveMQ uses a Commit-Then-Review process for getting changes contributed to
the development branches. In general, this means the ActiveMQ committers are
free to directly commit their own work to master and push those changes to the
canonical repository at Apache. However, the expectation is that the
developer has made a good effort to test their changes and is reasonably
confident that the changes that are being committed will not “break the build.”
What does it mean to be reasonably confident? That may depend on the developer. If the developer has run the same maven commands that the CI builds are running, they can likely be reasonably confident. However, if the changes are significant, touches a wide area of code, or even if the developer just wants a second opinion, they are encouraged to engage other members of the community to obtain an additional review prior to commit. This can easily be done via a pull request on github, a patch file attached to an email or JIRA, committed to a branch in the Apache git repo, etc… There are a variety of options open to them. Having additional eyes looking at significant changes prior to committing to the main development branches is definitely encouraged if it helps obtain the “reasonable confidence” that the build is not broken and code quality has not decreased. We also have automatic builds setup to test github pull requests in advance to help establish a good level
o
f confidence in the build.
However, “things happen”. We’re all human. In the case where the build does
break, the expectation is that the developer will make a best effort to get the
builds fixed in a reasonable amount of time. If it cannot be fixed in a
reasonable amount of time, the commit can be reverted and re-reviewed.
———————
Everyone: does that about cover it? Did I miss anything? The github pull
requests and gui tools are definitely a good tool chain in certain cases and I
would still encourage those folks that find value in them to continue using
them. However, they cannot be “required”.
Dan
On Jun 9, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 to stay with the existing CTR practice that is well established in the
ActiveMQ community. That's why committership is granted. It's a level of
trust and confidence that you don't make low hanging fruit errors.
I actually screw up all the time ;) But I rather make eventual
mistakes than not do something :)
Anyways... lets keep the pull requests as a tool. For instance I just
prevented an issue because of a PR Build
https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/418/
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/22
But I don't want to talk about the issue itself on this Thread... This
is a meta discussion.. I will talk about the issue itself on another
post I'm about to make
