On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > Definitely +1 for JIRA. > > I've created a custom field called "Pull Request Status" with 3 states: > * awaiting creation of pull request > * awaiting committer feedback > * awaiting contributor feedback > > The workflow is the following: > * If someone creates a jira issue with a patch we should ask him for a pull > request, "awaiting creation of pull request" > * Then once the PR is created, the contributor (or us when we do jira > cleanup) should move it to "awaiting committer feedback"
And the link to the pull request should be indicated. > * If the PR is missing stuff (tests, code best practices, design issue, etc) > then the committer should comment in jira or in the PR itself and change the > state to "awaiting contributor feedback" > > We have a filter that finds all issues having "patch" as a label, "patch" as > a keyword or the "Pull Request Status" value not being empty (I hope this one > works, I haven't tested it). > > You can see it here: > http://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa#Issue-Statistics/10472 > > It's listed on the JIRA home page. > > There are 43 open issues with patches ATM. We need to review them and set the > "Pull Request Status". We need to decide what to do with "old" patches from > the time when we didn't have PR. We should probably just consider them as > having PR and set the field status to either "awaiting committer feedback" or > "awaiting contributor feedback". Yes I think we should see them as pull requests IMO. And in general I don't think we force people to do pull request if for some reason they don't want to as long as the patch is easy to apply. > > WDYT? Is that good enough? Sounds good. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: > >> +1 for jira. It will force having a jira issue associated to any >> contribution. >> >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Yes JIRA is a good solution but then we would need a field in JIRA to >>> manage the special status for pull requests. >> >> Well that's exactly what Jerome suggested. >> >>> And a nice page on xwiki.org to list all pull requests JIRA with their >>> associated status would be nice. >> >> It should be very easy with jira macro but it would maybe make more >> sense to have it on jira home page (can also be both). >> >>> >>> Ludoivc >>> >>> 2012/8/9 Jerome Velociter <[email protected]>: >>>> On 08/09/2012 04:54 PM, Ludovic Dubost wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't think we can modify the GitHub pull request UI >>>>> (https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/pulls for platform) which >>>>> would have been best. >>>>> Now this can be either: >>>>> >>>>> 1/ put the status in a comment to the pull request and manage all that >>>>> manually >>>>> 2/ put the status a comment to the pull request and manage an XWiki >>>>> page that finds the latest STATUS published in a pull request using >>>>> the github API (http://developer.github.com/v3/pulls/comments/) >>>>> 3/ use an AppWithinMinutes application to manage the pull request >>>>> statuses. Using the pull request API the XWiki page could be >>>>> automatically be created and also send status changes as comments to >>>>> the pull request >>>> >>>> >>>> Why not a field in the associated JIRA ? >>>> >>>> In general, +1 for a clearly defined workflow >>>> >>>> Jerome >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> My post is not that much about where the statuses would be than about >>>>> asking for a pull request process which will make sure we don't let >>>>> pull request sleep without having anybody being responsible and >>>>> wasting contributors' work because of a lack of organization. >>>>> >>>>> Ludovic >>>>> >>>>> 2012/8/9 Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Where exactly do you propose this status to be indicated (I may have >>>>>> missed it) ? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think there is currently a process that is in place to handle >>>>>>> pull requests and I have the feeling that the way there are handled >>>>>>> today is a bit random. >>>>>>> There are usually comments sent out on each pull request but sometimes >>>>>>> it seems that some pull requests are going in sleep mode and it's not >>>>>>> clear who is in charge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to suggest that a process is put in place where it's >>>>>>> clear who is responsible for a pull request and a status is given to >>>>>>> the contributors that propose that pull request. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Something like: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Assigned developer: XXXX >>>>>>> Status: >>>>>>> New -> new pull request, not yet assigned >>>>>>> Assigned -> assigned to a developer, he is in charge of reviewing the >>>>>>> pull request and ask for modifications or accept it. The developer can >>>>>>> auto assign it to himself. If nobody does, we need to decide how they >>>>>>> will be taken into account. >>>>>>> ModificationsRequired -> for now rejected with comments. Contributor >>>>>>> needs to apply comments and then change back to Assigned for further >>>>>>> evaluation >>>>>>> VoteRequired -> there are no more comments, but a vote is required as >>>>>>> the changes to XWiki core are important >>>>>>> WaitingFinalAuthorization -> optional step for complex patches where >>>>>>> a additional authorization would be required (need to define who would >>>>>>> be the persons that give the authorization) >>>>>>> WaitingApplication -> there are no more comments and no changes or >>>>>>> vote required. The pull request can be applied and is waiting for a >>>>>>> developer to apply it >>>>>>> Abandoned -> contributors is abandoning the pull request (cannot do >>>>>>> the changes, no more time, etc..) >>>>>>> Rejected -> pull request is rejected (quality not enough, etc..) >>>>>>> Applied -> pull request is applied >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ludovic >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ludovic Dubost >>>>>>> Founder and CEO >>>>>>> Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ >>>>>>> XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com >>>>>>> Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> devs mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> devs mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Peace, >>>> —Jerome >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> devs mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ludovic Dubost >>> Founder and CEO >>> Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ >>> XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com >>> Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devs mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
