We could also enhance "metron/dev-utilities/release-utils/validate-jira-for-release" so that it spits out a warning for any JIRAs that are marked "Next + 1", but don't have a record in the commit history. That would at least be a reminder that the JIRA needs some follow-up.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:25 PM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Re: Labeling in Jira, I'm fine with having a be "Next + 1" from a release > management perspective, but I'd still consider at least taking action on > followup to be the relevant party's responsibility (implementer or whatever > the case may be). We probably should have a more clear way to tag things > like this, but I don't believe we do right now. If there's not a harder > dependency than my memory, chances are high it gets > overlooked/missed/whatever. > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:32 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I really like the idea of architecture.md -> **/architecture.md. > > > > We overall do not have javadoc in a lot of areas, and could maybe start > > working on it as we go and think about asking for it in reviews. > > We are also missing the Parser Programmer’s Guide, how to add a parser to > > the metron system/install etc and other things. > > > > > > > > On February 25, 2019 at 15:22:47, Ryan Merriman (merrim...@gmail.com) > > wrote: > > > > I feel like the code itself is pretty well documented. I updated existing > > javadocs and added javadocs to classes that didn't have them before this > > PR. In my opinion the level of documentation for these classes has > > increased significantly. > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:52 PM Michael Miklavcic < > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Tentatively agreed on further clarification of what we consider in/out > of > > > scope for documentation re: document something that wasn't documented > > > before. Ryan, can you give a quick summary of what you *have* > > added/updated > > > in documentation on this PR vs what you want to leave out? > > > > > > My initial concern in punting on docs right now is that part of what > made > > > this PR/task more challenging in the first place was not having > > > documentation. We risk losing context and detail again if we don't do > > this > > > immediately. Would it be reasonable to split it up as follows?: > > > > > > 1. Additional overarching documentation feels out of scope - make it a > > > follow on (see comments below). > > > 2. Adding documentation to our existing README's and java code comments > > > that describe the new/modified functionality should be in scope because > > > it's part of the unit of work. I expect that a developer should be able > > > to > > > look at the code, tests, comments, and README's and understand how this > > > code functions without having to start from scratch. > > > > > > The way we've handled follow-on work before, at least as far as feature > > > branches are concerned, was to create Jiras and link them to the > > > appropriate discussions for context. Maybe we can take that one step > > > further and do the release manager a favor by also labeling the > > > required/requested release on the Jira as a gating factor. This follows > > our > > > pattern for intermittent test failure reporting, e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1946?jql=project%20%3D%20METRON%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20test-failure%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC > > > . > > > > > > I'm also in favor of continuing to document architecture and technical > > > details as part of the code base as Ryan and Jon have suggested. I > think > > we > > > should have an "architecture.md" in metron root that replaces this - > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/d7d4fd9afb19e2bd2e66babb7e1514a19eae07d0/README.md#navigating-the-architecture > > > and covers the broad architecture with links to the appropriate modules > > for > > > detail. Minimally, it would be nice if we had a simple diagram showing > > the > > > basic flow of data in Metron. I think we probably want an updated > version > > > of this wiki entry from back in the day - > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Metron+Architecture > > > > > > Best, > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:18 AM Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't think we should hold up this work to document something that > > > wasn't > > > > previously documented. A follow-on is sufficient. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:50 AM Ryan Merriman <merrim...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Recently I submitted a PR < > > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1330> > > > > > > > that > > > > > introduces a large number of changes to a critical part of our code > > > base. > > > > > Reviewers feel like it is significant enough to document at an > > > > > architectural level (and I agree). There are a couple points I > would > > > > like > > > > > to clarify. > > > > > > > > > > Generally architectural documentation lives in the README of the > > > > > appropriate module. Do we want to continue documenting architecture > > > > here? > > > > > I think it makes sense because it will be versioned along with the > > > code. > > > > > Just wanted to confirm there are no objections to continuing this > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > > > A reviewer suggested we could accept the PR as is and leave the > > > > > architectural documentation as a follow on. I think this makes > sense > > > > > because it can be tedious to maintain a large PR as other smaller > > > commits > > > > > are accepted into master. An important requirement is the > > > documentation > > > > > follow on must be completed in a timely manner, before the next > > > release. > > > > > Are there any objections to doing it this way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
