Edgardo, Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a committer I can share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having already taken many of the steps you suggest.
However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should not be seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most of us will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our peers and some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions. Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long time and we are working to improve this pipeline. It was therefore no coincidence that I browsed most of the PRs performing a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the current code base. In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of stalled and superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8). Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a series of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from a release sooner rather than later. Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is good to have you here. Andre On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <edgardo.v...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently open. > > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I believe to be > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be a forcing > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more willing to > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able accepted and > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in progress is a > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged with the > community. > > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers at all. I > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't think I > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get that > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule about > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over by a core > contributor if they think it worthwhile. > > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick to > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional code. It > was a great PR experience. > > Cheers, > > Edgardo > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <joeperciv...@yahoo.com. > invalid> wrote: > > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests that > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version. > > > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count) > should > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor. In > order > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple days. > > > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug fixes > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up a > 1.1.0 > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added bonus > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already open > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count. > > > > > > Joe > > > > - - - - - - > > Joseph Percivall > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall > > e: joeperciv...@yahoo.com > > > > > > > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > There are less than 30 right now. Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just > > had fix versions removed. > > > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items. > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <edgardo.v...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Joe, > > > > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next > bunch > > of > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Edgardo > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Team, > > >> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features. I would like > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi > > >> 1.2.0 version. We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week release > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a lot > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> Joe > > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it. > > >> > > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Team, > > >> >> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line > > now > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release. > > There > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open. > I'm > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate. > > >> >> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone > else > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise. > > >> >> > > >> >> Thanks > > >> >> Joe > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Edgardo > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Edgardo >
