Hi *,
Why wouldn't these folks already be pissed that their pull request is lost
in a sea of 115 of them the stretches back years?
I did not say that I like the situation.
Let me ask another question as it sounds like you believe that the burden
is on the committers to get these processed.
The operative word here is indeed "processed".
As the contributor, I do not have that much influence from that moment I
submitted the PR. Sure, given some spare time I can rebase my PR on a per
week basis to keep it up to date and to raise a certain level of attention.
As you easily can observe, if that is the concept, then it seems not to work
really great in reality. I have not seen that happen for a single one of the
~1000 Thrift PRs. So it is probably fairly correct to say that nobody does
that.
If that's the case, do the committers have the tools necessary to revise
an outstanding pull request by rebasing it and then re-running it for the
submitter?
Of course not. I never said that. That's not their task. But keeping the
ball rolling is.
To bring the point across what I really intended to say: Without a doubt
some action is required, including lots of rebasing. But if you bluntly tell
a ~100 people at once, that we finally decided after 2 years (PR #93) that
all of the outstanding PRs have been thrown into the trash and need to be
resubmitted, you will probably see only 50% of them again.
Have fun,
JensG
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Jim King
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:10 AM
To: dev@thrift.apache.org
Subject: RE: 0.10.0
Why wouldn't these folks already be pissed that their pull request is lost
in a sea of 115 of them the stretches back years?
Let me ask another question as it sounds like you believe that the burden is
on the committers to get these processed.
If that's the case, do the committers have the tools necessary to revise an
outstanding pull request by rebasing it and then re-running it for the
submitter?
Given there are 115, even with 2 people working on it, it'll take 2-3 months
to clear out this list with focus.
I also noticed some builds are still exceeding the maximum run time (looks
like 48 or 49 minutes) on Travis CI.
I rebased and submitted a trivial change for removing some volatiles and the
Travis CI build is still failing:
https://github.com/apache/thrift/pull/981
-----Original Message-----
From: Jens Geyer [mailto:jensge...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 4:51 PM
To: dev@thrift.apache.org
Subject: Re: 0.10.0
Hi Jim,
Anything older than a couple months should probably be declined
outright and the author may resubmit it.
It sounds like a good idea, but honestly, I don't believe it is.
In the past months I did a lot of promoting on SO, especially mentioning and
highlighting the fact that we accept (good) patches and PRs whenever
possible. I don't have numbers about the net impact, but if we now tell the
people something to the effect of "Good news! We just solved our problem of
the filled backlog. Now it is your problem again. Isn't that awesome? By the
way, could you resubmit?" -- If you were the patch sender, what would you
think?
Frankly speaking, at least my answer would very likely start with an "F".
Because by doing that you not only sort of offend me (because you waste my
time). More importantly, you completely failed to instill enough confidence
in me to believe that my next PR will be handled better and this was just a
one-time occurrence for some reason that I could understand.
TL;DR:
In my opinion we should not do that. At least not to 110+ pull requests at
once.
Have fun,
JensG
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Jim King
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 5:47 PM
To: dev@thrift.apache.org
Subject: RE: 0.10.0
I suggested to Jake in an email that we should drain the pull request list
before we do this. There are 110+ open pull requests on github. That size
backlog is not healthy. Anything recent that can be rebased and merged
should be included. Anything older than a couple months should probably be
declined outright and the author may resubmit it.
- Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Aki Sukegawa [mailto:ns...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 5:14 AM
To: dev@thrift.apache.org
Subject: Re: 0.10.0
+1 !
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 17:07 Jens Geyer <jensge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+1
________________________________
Von: Jake Farrell
Gesendet: 11.07.2016 04:02
An: dev@thrift.apache.org
Betreff: 0.10.0
With the builds now solely on travis and the pre-commit green again
what are peoples thoughts on cutting 0.10.0, any objections?
-Jake
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVACY STATEMENT:
This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments
are a private communication sent by SimpliVity and are considered to be
confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this
message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery
error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVACY STATEMENT:
This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments
are a private communication sent by SimpliVity and are considered to be
confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this
message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery
error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
