No, I was not aware, so I think people will have to remember for themselves.
Still, I think this is minor. Thank you for the info!
On 5/19/21, 4:28 AM, "Alberto Bustamante Reyes"
<alberto.bustamante.re...@est.tech> wrote:
Most probably you are already aware of it (and this is why it has not been
changed in geode repo) but it seems github does not allow to configure draft
PRs as default option for a given repository.
________________________________
De: Mark Hanson <hans...@vmware.com>
Enviado: viernes, 7 de mayo de 2021 23:06
Para: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>; Blake Bender
<bbl...@vmware.com>
Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the basic consensus here is that the
starting state for all PRs should be draft. We should change the default if we
can... The sticky part is when to put a PR from standard to draft. If we always
start with draft mode, lets deal with that when it becomes a real problem. I
don't think it will be a significant one if the consensus is we start with
draft PRs.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/7/21, 2:03 PM, "Mark Hanson" <hans...@vmware.com> wrote:
@Blake Bender The same goes for the geode code. The PR pipeline is
*the* way to know if we broke something or not. Most people don't know how to
run the individual tests.
Thanks,
Mark
On 5/7/21, 10:07 AM, "Blake Bender" <bbl...@vmware.com> wrote:
+1 for draft mode as default. I'm forever switching to it in
geode-native already, because the most convenient way for us to get feedback on
build/test status for all platforms is to run a change through CI, and the only
way to do that is to submit it as a PR.
Thanks,
Blake
-----Original Message-----
From: Alberto Bustamante Reyes <alberto.bustamante.re...@est.tech>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:19 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: RE: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Mark's proposal of setting draft mode as default when
creating PRs (Im wondering if a new VOTE thread is needed to approve it)
And also +1 to Donal's comments.
________________________________
De: Darrel Schneider <dar...@vmware.com>
Enviado: jueves, 6 de mayo de 2021 21:43
Para: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
Asunto: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Donal's comments
________________________________
From: Donal Evans <doev...@vmware.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
+1 to Naba's PR flow described above.
Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it
prevents people from being tagged to review a set of changes that may change
significantly due to test failures and only requires a single click to convert
to the "ready to review" state - hardly a major inconvenience.
However, the real tricky question here seems to be "When should you
move a PR from "Ready to review" back into draft mode?" I tend to agree with
Jens that a flaky test failure by itself isn't enough to warrant putting a PR
back into draft mode, as it's often possible to identify the failure as being
due to an existing known bug and merge the PR knowing that your changes aren't
the cause. We don't require that all PR tests are green before merging, just
some of them, so it's reasonable to assume that we don't require all PR tests
to be green before a PR is considered ready for review either.
Minor edits due to review comments (like spelling mistakes or minor
code quality/style changes) also don't feel like they should cause a PR to be
put back into draft mode, as while the contents of the PR may change because of
them, it won't invalidate other in-progress reviews if it does, or
significantly alter the nature of the PR.
For me, the bar for whether a PR should be put back into draft mode
is if you know that its current state is not reflective of the final state that
will be merged into develop. In general, the only time that should happen is if
you've received review feedback that will require a change of approach or
significant refactoring/additional code. It's the difference between "needs a
little polish" and "needs more work," I think. Obviously, what counts as
"significant" is entirely subjective, so this isn't much use as a hard and fast
rule, but a rough guide might be that if a reviewer has requested changes that
would invalidate or render obsolete/redundant any additional reviews that come
in before those changes are applied, moving back to draft mode would probably
be a good idea.
Donal
________________________________
From: Nabarun Nag <n...@vmware.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:22 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
I feel that Owen has a valid point and I myself feel that it is ok
to start the PR in draft mode till the pre-check tests pass.
There has been this situation where,
* PR is created (reviewers are assigned)
* approved
* Tests fail
* code is changed
* no reviews
* code is merged
Hence code that is not reviewed has been merged
This way of doing work also has the following advantages:
* A reviewer does not have to review a code that causes tests
to fail
* A reviewer does not have to review code twice before failure
and then again after changing the code to fix the failure
* Unreviewed code post-test fixes do not get merged
I think this way of working saves a critical amount of time for
engineers who review code.
This flow of PRs feels more efficient:
* Create PR in draft mode - no reviewers assigned
* PRechecks fail
* change/fix code
* tests pass - all green
* convert PR to ready for review - reviewers assigned
* reviewers review
Regards
Naba
________________________________
From: Owen Nichols <onich...@vmware.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
Given the lack of consensus, it sounds like it will not be possible
to make any assumptions about a PR based on whether it is in Draft mode or not.
I will stop retriggering flaky checks or changing PRs to draft status. My
apologies for the inconvenience this has caused.
On 5/6/21, 9:47 AM, "Jens Deppe" <jde...@vmware.com> wrote:
I don’t think we can presume everyone has the same working
style. For myself I’ll happily review a PR that has a failing check. I’m OK if
it has some innocuous ‘housekeeping’ error or unrelated failure.
I don’t retrigger PR failures, for unrelated errors, just to
‘get to green’ – related, I don’t expect anyone to do that on my part either.
It would be frustrating if I was about to merge something and someone
retriggers a job. Yes I do merge if I’m 100% confident the failed check is
unrelated. I don’t merge if any checks are still pending.
Perhaps this is just relevant to my current situation, but most
of my PRs are module specific and so there is collaboration between my team and
we typically know the state of our various PRs. I don’t feel like there is much
need for any process around switching in and out of Draft mode. Much less for
an ‘external’ contributor to make decisions on our behalf.
Has some situation arisen that is driving this? It feels like
there is some underlying issue that isn’t being fully communicated.
--Jens
From: Owen Nichols <onich...@vmware.com>
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:12 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode
A PR in "Draft" mode simply conveys that at least one more
commit is coming before it will be "done". Reviewers generously volunteer
their time to look at your PR, and are welcome to look at it while in draft
mode if they wish, but if they are quite busy, some may prefer to wait until
the PR is plausibly code-complete before setting aside time to review it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I don't mean that flaky failures
should mean a PR is not done. You can always refer to the latest mass test
report for a list of known flaky failures, but often I will see those and
retrigger them for you anyway.
I expect that most PR submitters will be monitoring their own
PR checks and taking it back to draft mode as soon as they realize more changes
are needed. But if as a community we agree to use draft mode to communicate
status in this way, it shouldn't matter who does it.
Due to CODEOWNERS, some reviewers have a huge number of PRs in
their queue. Clearly communicating the status of your PR allows reviewers to
focus their time on PRs that are ready for review.
On 5/6/21, 8:51 AM, "Jens Deppe" <jde...@vmware.com> wrote:
Comments inline…
Please keep your PR in draft mode anytime it is not ready
to be reviewed.
This includes if you have received request for changes, or
if any PR checks are not passing.
How do I know if everyone is done reviewing? Or even who
might be reviewing? Different reviewers may be looking at different areas,
depending on the scope of the change. If the PR suddenly switches back to
‘Draft` what does that mean if I’m reviewing it? Worse still, if I’m the owner
and someone else switches it to Draft I’m not notified.
Additionally, many PR checks fail for reasons unrelated to
the PR so switching blindly to ‘Draft’ seems pointless.
If you’re reviewing someone’s PR, and notice any checks not
passing or you are requesting changes, please also click “Convert to draft”.
I really don’t agree with this – if you have an issue with
a PR for whatever reason, please respect the author and address it directly
with them. I certainly feel uncomfortable ‘messing’ with someone else’s PR and,
by the same token, don’t want my PRs adjusted without my input.
--Jens
