Thanks for leading the effort Fabian! On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote:
> Very nice work, Fabian. I think we'll have to send around a reminder > from time to time and, perhaps, evaluate the new guidelines after some > period of time. It's great to have these documents now as a reference. > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> >
