Great, thanks Fabian! On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks again for leading this effort, Fabian > > - Henry > > On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi everybody, > > > > I merged our new contribution guidelines a few minutes ago. > > > > I'd like to emphasize that these rules do not have any effect, if nobody > > follows them. > > So please follow our contribution rules and make others aware of them as > > well. > > > > Specifically > > - pay attention that all PRs are backed by a JIRA and ask to create a > JIRA > > if that is not the case > > - early discuss whether a feature request is valid (before code is > > contributed) to avoid frustrating late rejections of PRs. > > - request, provide, and discuss design docs for sensible contributions to > > avoid major redesigns / rejections of PRs. > > > > Thank you, > > Fabian > > > > 2015-10-07 10:16 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com > <javascript:;> > > >: > > > > > Thanks for the feedback everybody. > > > I updated the PR and would like to merge it later today if there are no > > > more comments. > > > > > > Cheers, Fabian > > > > > > > > > 2015-10-05 14:09 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com > > <javascript:;>>: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I opened a PR with the discussed changes [1]. > > >> Please review, give feedback, and suggest changes. > > >> > > >> Cheers, Fabian > > >> > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/11 > > >> > > >> > > >> 2015-09-28 18:02 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com > > <javascript:;>>: > > >> > > >>> @Chiwan, sure. Will do that. Thanks for pointing it out :-) > > >>> > > >>> 2015-09-28 18:00 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@apache.org > > <javascript:;>>: > > >>> > > >>>> @Fabian, Could you cover FLINK-2712 in your pull request? I think > that > > >>>> it would be better than split pull request. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> Chiwan Park > > >>>> > > >>>> > On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Thanks everybody for the discussion. > > >>>> > I'll prepare a pull request to update the "How to contribute" and > > >>>> "Coding > > >>>> > Guidelines". > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Thanks, > > >>>> > Fabian > > >>>> > > > >>>> > 2015-09-26 9:06 GMT+02:00 Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org > > <javascript:;>>: > > >>>> > > > >>>> >> Hi Fabian, > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> This is a very important topic. Thanks for starting the > discussion. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> 1) JIRA discussion > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Absolutely. No new feature should be introduced without a > > discussion. > > >>>> >> Frankly, I see the problem that sometimes discussions only come > up > > >>>> >> when the pull request has been opened. However, this can be > > overcome > > >>>> >> by the design document. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> 2) Design document > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> +1 for the document. It increases transparency but also helps the > > >>>> >> contributor to think his idea through before starting to code. > The > > >>>> >> document could also be written directly in JIRA. That way, it is > > more > > >>>> >> accessible. JIRA offers mark up; even images can be attached and > > >>>> >> displayed in the JIRA description. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> I'd like to propose another section "Limitations" for the design > > >>>> >> document. Breaking API changes should also be listed on a special > > >>>> Wiki > > >>>> >> page. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> 3) Coding style > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> In addition to updating the document, do we want to enforce > coding > > >>>> >> styles also by adding new Maven Checkstyle rules? IMHO strict > rules > > >>>> >> could cause more annoyances than they actually contribute to the > > >>>> >> readability of the code. Perhaps this should be discussed in a > > >>>> >> separate thread. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> +1 for collecting common problems and design patterns to include > > them > > >>>> >> in the document. I was thinking, that we should also cover some > of > > >>>> the > > >>>> >> features of tools and dependencies we heavily use, e.g. Travis, > > >>>> >> Mockito, Guava, Log4j, FlinkMiniCluster, Unit testing vs IT > cases, > > >>>> >> etc. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> 4 ) Restructuring the how to contribute guide > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Good idea to have a meta document that explains how contributing > > >>>> works > > >>>> >> in general, and another document for technical things. > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Cheers, > > >>>> >> Max > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Fabian Hueske < > fhue...@gmail.com > > <javascript:;>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> Thanks everybody for feedback and comments. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> Regarding 1) and 2): > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> I like the idea of keeping the discussion of new features and > > >>>> >> improvements > > >>>> >>> in JIRA as Kostas proposed. > > >>>> >>> Our coding guidelines [1] already request a JIRA issue for each > > pull > > >>>> >>> request. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> How about we highlight this requirement more prominently and > > follow > > >>>> this > > >>>> >>> rule more strict from now on. > > >>>> >>> JIRA issues for new features and improvements should clearly > > >>>> specify the > > >>>> >>> scope and requirements for the new feature / improvement. > > >>>> >>> The level of detail is up to the reporter of the issue, but the > > >>>> community > > >>>> >>> can request more detail or change the scope and requirements by > > >>>> >> discussion. > > >>>> >>> When a JIRA issue for a new feature or improvement is opened, > the > > >>>> >> community > > >>>> >>> can start a discussion whether the feature is desirable for > Flink > > >>>> or not. > > >>>> >>> Any contributor (including the reporter) can also attach a > > >>>> >>> "design-doc-requested" label to the issue. A design document can > > be > > >>>> >>> proposed by anybody, including the reporter or assignee of the > > JIRA > > >>>> >> issue. > > >>>> >>> However, the issue cannot be resolved and a corresponding PR not > > be > > >>>> >> merged > > >>>> >>> before a design document has been accepted by lazy consensus. > > >>>> Hence, an > > >>>> >>> assignee should propose a design doc before starting to code to > > >>>> avoid > > >>>> >> major > > >>>> >>> redesigns of the implementation. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> This way it is up to the community when to start a discussion > > about > > >>>> >> whether > > >>>> >>> a feature request is accepted or to request a design document. > We > > >>>> can > > >>>> >> make > > >>>> >>> design documents mandatory for changes that touch the public > API. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> Regarding 3): > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> I agree with Vasia, that we should collect suggestions for > common > > >>>> >> patterns > > >>>> >>> and also continuously update the coding guidelines. > > >>>> >>> @Henry, I had best practices (exception handling, tests, etc.) > in > > >>>> mind. > > >>>> >>> Syntactic code style is important as well, but we should have a > > >>>> separate > > >>>> >>> discussion about that, IMO. > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> Proposal for a design document template: > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> - Overview of general approach > > >>>> >>> - API changes (changed interfaces, new / deprecated > configuration > > >>>> >>> parameters, changed behavior) > > >>>> >>> - Main components and classes to touch > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> Cheers, > > >>>> >>> Fabian > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> [1] http://flink.apache.org/coding-guidelines.html > > >>>> >>> <http://flink.apache.org/coding-guidelines.html> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> 2015-09-24 10:52 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@apache.org > > <javascript:;>>: > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>> Thanks Fabian for starting the discussion. > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> +1 for overall approach. > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> About (1), expressing that consensus must be required for new > > >>>> feature > > >>>> >> in > > >>>> >>>> “How to contribute” page is very nice. Some pull requests were > > sent > > >>>> >> without > > >>>> >>>> consensus. The contributors had to rewrote their pull requests. > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> Agree with (2), (3) and (4). > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> Regards, > > >>>> >>>> Chiwan Park > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Henry Saputra < > > >>>> henry.sapu...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > >>>> >>>> wrote: > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> Thanks again, Fabian for starting the discussions. > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> For (1) and (2) I think it is good idea and will help people > to > > >>>> >>>>> understand and follow the author thought process. > > >>>> >>>>> Following up with Stephan's reply, some new features solutions > > >>>> could > > >>>> >>>>> be explained thoroughly in the PR descriptions but some > requires > > >>>> >>>>> additional reviews of the proposed design. > > >>>> >>>>> I like the idea of using tag in JIRA whether new features > should > > >>>> or > > >>>> >>>>> should not being accompanied by design document. > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> Agree with (3) and (4). > > >>>> >>>>> As for (3) are you thinking about more of style of code syntax > > via > > >>>> >>>>> checkstyle updates, or best practices in term of no mutable > > state > > >>>> if > > >>>> >>>>> possible, throw precise Exception if possible for interfaces, > > >>>> etc. ? > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> - Henry > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Stephan Ewen < > se...@apache.org > > <javascript:;>> > > >>>> >> wrote: > > >>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Fabian for driving this! > > >>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>> I agree with your points. > > >>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>> Concerning Vasia's comment to not raise the bar too high: > > >>>> >>>>>> That is true, the requirements should be reasonable. We can > > >>>> >> definitely > > >>>> >>>> tag > > >>>> >>>>>> issues as "simple" which means they do not require a design > > >>>> >> document. > > >>>> >>>> That > > >>>> >>>>>> should be more for new features and needs not be very > detailed. > > >>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>> We could also make the inverse, meaning we explicitly tag > > certain > > >>>> >>>> issues as > > >>>> >>>>>> "requires design document". > > >>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>> Greetings, > > >>>> >>>>>> Stephan > > >>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri < > > >>>> >>>> vasilikikala...@gmail.com <javascript:;> > > >>>> >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> Hi, > > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> I agree with you Fabian. Clarifying these issues in the "How > > to > > >>>> >>>> Contribute" > > >>>> >>>>>>> guide will save lots of time both to reviewers and > > contributors. > > >>>> >> It is > > >>>> >>>> a > > >>>> >>>>>>> really disappointing situation when someone spends time > > >>>> >> implementing > > >>>> >>>>>>> something and their PR ends up being rejected because either > > the > > >>>> >>>> feature > > >>>> >>>>>>> was not needed or the implementation details were never > agreed > > >>>> on. > > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> That said, I think we should also make sure that we don't > > raise > > >>>> the > > >>>> >>>> bar too > > >>>> >>>>>>> high for simple contributions. > > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> Regarding (1) and (2), I think we should clarify what kind > of > > >>>> >>>>>>> additions/changes require this process to be followed. e.g. > do > > >>>> we > > >>>> >> need > > >>>> >>>> to > > >>>> >>>>>>> discuss additions for which JIRAs already exist? Ideas > > described > > >>>> >> in the > > >>>> >>>>>>> roadmaps? Adding a new algorithm to Gelly/Flink-ML? > > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> Regarding (3), maybe we can all suggest some > examples/patterns > > >>>> that > > >>>> >>>> we've > > >>>> >>>>>>> seen when reviewing PRs and then choose the most common (or > > >>>> all). > > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> (4) sounds good to me. > > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>> >>>>>>> Vasia. > > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> On 23 September 2015 at 15:08, Kostas Tzoumas < > > >>>> ktzou...@apache.org <javascript:;> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>> wrote: > > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>> Big +1. > > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>> For (1), a discussion in JIRA would also be an option IMO > > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>> For (2), let us come up with few examples on what > > constitutes a > > >>>> >>>> feature > > >>>> >>>>>>>> that needs a design doc, and what should be in the doc (IMO > > >>>> >>>>>>>> architecture/general approach, components touched, > interfaces > > >>>> >> changed) > > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Fabian Hueske < > > >>>> fhue...@gmail.com <javascript:;> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everybody, > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess we all have noticed that the Flink community is > > >>>> quickly > > >>>> >>>> growing > > >>>> >>>>>>>> and > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> more and more contributions are coming in. Recently, a few > > >>>> >>>>>>> contributions > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> proposed new features without being discussed on the > mailing > > >>>> >> list. > > >>>> >>>> Some > > >>>> >>>>>>>> of > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> these contributions were not accepted in the end. In other > > >>>> cases, > > >>>> >>>> pull > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> requests had to be heavily reworked because the approach > > taken > > >>>> >> was > > >>>> >>>> not > > >>>> >>>>>>>> the > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> best one. These are situations which should be avoided > > because > > >>>> >> both > > >>>> >>>> the > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> contributor as well as the person who reviewed the > > >>>> contribution > > >>>> >>>>>>> invested > > >>>> >>>>>>>> a > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> lot of time for nothing. > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I had a look at our “How to contribute” and “Coding > > guideline” > > >>>> >> pages > > >>>> >>>>>>> and > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> think, we can improve them. I see basically two issues: > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. The documents do not explain how to propose and discuss > > new > > >>>> >>>>>>> features > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> and improvements. > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. The documents are quite technical and the structure > could > > >>>> be > > >>>> >>>>>>>> improved, > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> IMO. > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to improve these pages and propose the > > following > > >>>> >>>>>>> additions: > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Request contributors and committers to start > discussions > > on > > >>>> >> the > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> mailing list for new features. This discussion should help > > to > > >>>> >> figure > > >>>> >>>>>>> out > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> whether such a new feature is a good fit for Flink and > give > > >>>> first > > >>>> >>>>>>>> pointers > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> for a design to implement it. > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Require contributors and committers to write design > > >>>> >> documents for > > >>>> >>>>>>>> all > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> new features and major improvements. These documents > should > > be > > >>>> >>>> attached > > >>>> >>>>>>>> to > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> a JIRA issue and follow a template which needs to be > > defined. > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Extend the “Coding Style Guides” and add patterns that > > are > > >>>> >>>>>>> commonly > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> remarked in pull requests. > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Restructure the current pages into three pages: a > general > > >>>> >> guide > > >>>> >>>>>>> for > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> contributions and two guides for how to contribute to code > > and > > >>>> >>>> website > > >>>> >>>>>>>> with > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> all technical issues (repository, IDE setup, build system, > > >>>> etc.) > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Looking forward for your comments, > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Fabian > > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >
