My comments inline.. On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm -1 on using the author field like this in Apex for the reason stated > (it is also odd to see something like this showing up without prior > discussion). > > I am not set on this for future commits but would like to say, do we really verify the author field and treat it with importance. For example, I don't think we ever check if the author is the person they say they are, check name, email etc. If I were to use slightly different variations of my name or email (not that I would do that) would reviewers really verify that. I also have checked that tools don't fail on reading a commit because author needs to be in a certain format. I guess contribution stats are the ones that will be affected but if used rarely I dont see that being a big problem. I can understand if we wanted to have strict requirements for the committer field. Thanks > Consider adding the additional author information to the commit message. > > Thomas > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com> > wrote: > > > Agreed it is not regular and should only be used in special > circumstances. > > One example of this is pair programming. It has been done before in other > > projects and searching on google or stackoverflow you can see how other > > people have tried to handle it > > > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=375536 > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=451880 > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7442112/attributing- > > a-single-commit-to-multiple-developers > > > > Thanks > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > commit 9856080ede62a4529d730bcb6724c757f5010990 > > > Author: Pramod Immaneni & Vlad Rozov <pramod+v.ro...@datatorrent.com> > > > Date: Tue Apr 18 09:37:22 2017 -0700 > > > > > > Please don't use the author field in such a way, it leads to incorrect > > > tracking of contributions. > > > > > > Either have separate commits or have one author. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Pramod Immaneni < > pra...@datatorrent.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The issue was two different plugin models were developed, one for > > > > pre-launch and other for post-launch. I felt that the one built > latter > > > was > > > > better and it would be better to have a uniform interface for the > users > > > and > > > > hence asked for the changes. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think the plugins feature could have benefited from better > original > > > > > review, which would have eliminated much of the back and forth > after > > > the > > > > > fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Vlad Rozov < > v.ro...@datatorrent.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Pramod, > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not a request to update the apex.apache.org (to do > that > > we > > > > > need > > > > > > to file JIRA). It is a reminder that it is against Apex policy to > > > merge > > > > > PR > > > > > > without giving enough time for others to review it (few hours > after > > > PR > > > > > was > > > > > > open). > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > Vlad > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/27/17 08:05, Pramod Immaneni wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Vlad, are you asking for a consensus on the policy to make it > > > official > > > > > >> (publish on website etc). I believe we have one. However, I did > > not > > > > see > > > > > >> much difference between what you said on Mar 26th to what I > > proposed > > > > on > > > > > >> Mar > > > > > >> 24th. Is the main difference any committer can merge (not just > the > > > > main > > > > > >> reviewer) as long as there are no objections from others. In > that > > > > case, > > > > > I > > > > > >> am fine with it. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Vlad Rozov < > > > v.ro...@datatorrent.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> This is a friendly reminder regarding PR merge policy. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Thank you, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Vlad > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On 3/23/17 12:58, Vlad Rozov wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Lately there were few instances where PR open against apex-core > > and > > > > > >>>> apex-malhar were merged just few hours after it being open and > > > JIRA > > > > > >>>> being > > > > > >>>> raised without giving chance for other contributors to review > > and > > > > > >>>> comment. > > > > > >>>> I'd suggest that we stop such practice no matter how trivial > > those > > > > > >>>> changes > > > > > >>>> are. This equally applies to documentation. In a rear cases > > where > > > PR > > > > > is > > > > > >>>> urgent (for example one that fixes compilation error), I'd > > suggest > > > > > that > > > > > >>>> a > > > > > >>>> committer who plans to merge the PR sends an explicit > > notification > > > > to > > > > > >>>> dev@apex and gives others a reasonable time to respond. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Thank you, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Vlad > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
