Hi, GitHub just introduced a way to supply PR templates. [1]
To support the changes discussed here, we could add a simple template with check boxes like: [ ] did you add tests [ ] did you check against the coding guidelines [ ] is there a jira supporting the PR Let me know what you think. The language/tone probably needs a bit of refinement. best regards martin [1] https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> schrieb am Do., 15. Okt. 2015 um 11:58 Uhr: > 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 > > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
