> The bot is for lots of projects, not only HBase, so we can not shut it down.
Pardon me Duo. I am proposing we terminate PreCommit-HBASE-Build. The PreCommit-Admin job appears to be the responsibility of Yetus and is out of scope of my discussion here. > There's already debt on that job; Nick has been starting to pay it down and I'd imagine that's how we got to this thread about just turning it off. Sean is calling me out here, and it's correct. I have recently been looking to add JDK11 support to all of our CI jobs (HBASE-23875 and friends), and Jira-attached patch files is the one that demands the most work, just to get up to be on par with the rest. See HBASE-23874 and HBASE-23879 as prerequisites.... And then today I uncovered this little gem: it looks like PreCommit-HBASE-Build is broken for all but whatever is the first attachment file recognized as a patch. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-23888 Final nail in the coffin is that it seems the global PreCommit-Admin job is not actually running on it's intended 10-minute interval. It broke today and no one noticed until I went looking. When it does run, it's somehow missing newly attached files. This is evident by way of the output of the last couple job runs missing Issue/Attachment pairs for the various attachments on HBASE-23874. So yes, I do believe that a PR results in a better code review. I'm also selfishly interested in cutting work that we don't *have* to do, supporting a process that isn't used by the majority of our contributors. On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 6:52 AM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > There's a dedicated precommit job just for the hbase main repo. We can shut > it down without impacting other projects or even other hbase repos. There's > already debt on that job; Nick has been starting to pay it down and I'd > imagine that's how we got to this thread about just turning it off. For > example branch 1 handling is currently broken for the jira patch tester but > not the GitHub PR tester. > > I personally don't find it more difficult to evaluate either kind of > contribution because I rely on Apache Yetus Smart Apply Patch which "just > works" most of the time given just a jira key to grab either patch or PRs. > > However, I definitely agree with the much more difficult commenting > workflow with just jira. Personally that means if my feedback is going to > be more than "lgtm" then I ask the contributor to shift to a PR. > > I looked at runs of the jira patch precommit bit over Feb and most of them > look like either duplicate work where it ended up testing a GitHub PR that > the dedicated PR precommit also tested or an old patch getting retested due > to age off of the "did I already test this" check of the coordinating job. > > There was a contribution from a first time contributor, but afaict they > were following the ref guide rather than intentionally avoiding github. > > I'm also strongly in favor of just shifting to PRs. > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 05:53 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The bot is for lots of projects, not only HBase, so we can not shut it > > down. > > > > My concern is that, do we really need to shut it down completely? The pre > > commit job is still fine I think? So just leave it as is? And when > > sometimes it is broken and needs a lot of effort to maintain, then we can > > shut it down? > > > > Wellington Chevreuil <[email protected]>于2020年2月22日 > > 周六19:12写道： > > > > > +1, can only see benefits of using GitHub PRs over attached patches. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2020, 21:33 Andrew Purtell, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 to the idea, having one contribution workflow instead of two is > 50% > > > less > > > > confusing (or 100% depending how you count it). > > > > > > > > > applying a patch for local evaluation is more tedious than checking > > > out a > > > > PR branch. > > > > > > > > Except it's not necessary to download and apply the patch to evaluate > > it, > > > > we have precommit for both workflows. But that brings up something > you > > > > didn't mention, which is having two precommit workflows, one for > JIRA, > > > one > > > > for PRs, can be burdensome. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:28 PM Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Heya, and happy Friday. > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose that we drop support for receiving > > > contributions > > > > by > > > > > way of attaching a patch file to a Jira issue. From my perspective, > > in > > > > the > > > > > face of modern interfaces for PR-style review, this is an "archaic" > > > form > > > > of > > > > > contribution that is "actively harmful" to project health. I'm > being > > > > > intentionally divisive, but here's my argument. The "state of the > > art," > > > > > "modern" "best practices" revolve around a PR > > > (GitHub/GitLab/Gerrit/&c.) > > > > > -style review process that enjoys an intentionally designed user > > > > experience > > > > > and has many points of friction reduced or removed entirely. > > > > > > > > > > When a patch arrives via Jira attachment, it passes through a > process > > > > that > > > > > suffers from a higher level of friction, something that actively > > > > > discourages the level of code review that it could have received > via > > > PR. > > > > I > > > > > believe that reduced friction results is a more thorough, > thoughtful > > > > review > > > > > and a review that's better able to handle large change-sets, vs. > the > > > > > attached patch process. Specific friction points include: > > > > > * applying a patch for local evaluation is more tedious than > > checking > > > > out > > > > > a PR branch. > > > > > * each comment requires the reviewer to provide their own context > > > > > (reference line numbers, copy-paste code snippets, &c) before > saying > > > > > anything at all. > > > > > * threaded discussion around individual comments is impossibly > > > difficult > > > > > to manage for both participants and casual observers. > > > > > * a super-human level of attention to detail is required on the > > parts > > > of > > > > > both contributor and reviewer to ensure that all review comments > have > > > > been > > > > > addressed. > > > > > * syntax highlighting (while rudimentary vs. IDE-based evaluation) > > > makes > > > > > patches easier to read and digest. > > > > > > > > > > I claim "actively harmful" compared to the alternative because the > > > above > > > > > minor friction points, taken together, discourages the higher > quality > > > > > reviews that are possible by way of (1) the git-based interface to > > the > > > > > contributed content and (2) a commenting system that supports > > > contextual, > > > > > threaded, and resolvable comments. > > > > > > > > > > The primary counter argument I've come up with is based around user > > > > access. > > > > > It's possible that there's a contributor who has an Apache JIRA ID > > but > > > > not > > > > > a GitHub ID, who is unwilling to make an account on the non-Apache > > > > service. > > > > > Not accepting issue-attached patches means we exclude that > > contributor > > > > from > > > > > our community. However, I suspect that the number of active and > > > potential > > > > > contributors who falls into that bucket is at or approaching zero. > I > > > > > suspect that the world of potential contributors who have a GitHub > ID > > > but > > > > > refuse to make an Apache JIRA ID is actually far greater. > > > > > > > > > > Thus I propose we discontinue accepting patches attached to Jira > > > issues; > > > > > our contributor guide would exclusively ask for a PR; we can shut > > down > > > > the > > > > > pre-commit robot from scanning Jira. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for your thoughtful participation in this > > discussion. > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from > truth's > > > > decrepit hands > > > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > > > > > >
