Re: Following our Review-Then-Commit process
-- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! GPG public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x45D3565377F93D29 > On 4. Apr 2017, at 05:13, Joan Touzet wrote: > >> >> On 04/03/2017 05:17 PM, Joan Touzet wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I wanted to express a concern with my CouchDB PMC hat on. >>> >>> There is some great work being merged by Cloudant here. But I'm not >>> seeing the Review-Then-Commit pattern being followed in a >>> significant >>> number of these PRs coming through to any of our repos. >>> >>> Take as an example this one, which is one of 4 related PRs to merge >>> replicator scheduling work. None of these 4 PRs shows an >>> independent +1 >>> posted to the comment thread, or even a token +1 by a fellow >>> Cloudant >>> committer. >> >> A branch was deleted because because monorepo work made it invalid. >> >> Nothing was merged. I think it might be confusing seeing the PR >> auto-close after branch delete and assuming it was because of a >> merge...? >> >> This is still WIP. There will be new PR and a mailing list >> announcement >> soon. > > Thanks Nick, I appreciate it, though there have been other merged > branches in the last couple of months that didn't have visible +1s > on them. > > My comments on documentation and testing still stand. > > -Joan Joan, thanks for bringing this up - it is very important to speak about this. In my daily work I have one important thing (next to many others) to do: make sure that tests are written, make sure that the documentation and make sure that all developers are able to follow along when writing code or work on code from others. The quality will drop immediately if these things are left behind and that’s a no go. So I would like to point to the guidelines at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Contributing and ask everyone to follow along. Maybe we have to check if everything is still up to date. All the best Andy
Re: Following our Review-Then-Commit process
> On 04/03/2017 05:17 PM, Joan Touzet wrote: > > All, > > > > I wanted to express a concern with my CouchDB PMC hat on. > > > > There is some great work being merged by Cloudant here. But I'm not > > seeing the Review-Then-Commit pattern being followed in a > > significant > > number of these PRs coming through to any of our repos. > > > > Take as an example this one, which is one of 4 related PRs to merge > > replicator scheduling work. None of these 4 PRs shows an > > independent +1 > > posted to the comment thread, or even a token +1 by a fellow > > Cloudant > > committer. > > A branch was deleted because because monorepo work made it invalid. > > Nothing was merged. I think it might be confusing seeing the PR > auto-close after branch delete and assuming it was because of a > merge...? > > This is still WIP. There will be new PR and a mailing list > announcement > soon. Thanks Nick, I appreciate it, though there have been other merged branches in the last couple of months that didn't have visible +1s on them. My comments on documentation and testing still stand. -Joan
Re: Following our Review-Then-Commit process
On 04/03/2017 05:17 PM, Joan Touzet wrote: All, I wanted to express a concern with my CouchDB PMC hat on. There is some great work being merged by Cloudant here. But I'm not seeing the Review-Then-Commit pattern being followed in a significant number of these PRs coming through to any of our repos. Take as an example this one, which is one of 4 related PRs to merge replicator scheduling work. None of these 4 PRs shows an independent +1 posted to the comment thread, or even a token +1 by a fellow Cloudant committer. A branch was deleted because because monorepo work made it invalid. Nothing was merged. I think it might be confusing seeing the PR auto-close after branch delete and assuming it was because of a merge...? This is still WIP. There will be new PR and a mailing list announcement soon. -Nick
Following our Review-Then-Commit process (was: couchdb pull request #454)
All, I wanted to express a concern with my CouchDB PMC hat on. There is some great work being merged by Cloudant here. But I'm not seeing the Review-Then-Commit pattern being followed in a significant number of these PRs coming through to any of our repos. Take as an example this one, which is one of 4 related PRs to merge replicator scheduling work. None of these 4 PRs shows an independent +1 posted to the comment thread, or even a token +1 by a fellow Cloudant committer. Nor does the JIRA ticket, COUCHDB-3324, show anything other than the text "Merge scheduling replicator" and links to the related 4 PRs in its description. As a developer I have no clue what this actually does. There is some additional detail in some of the PR commits but at least one of them has so many commits, I can't suss out the overall meaning of the change. As an occasional documentation author I don't know how I'd begin to explain the change, and there is sadly not an associated PR in the couchdb-documentation repository. Our documentation is already behind from 2.0, and while some of our committers out there are making PRs to get these things merged in, I'd like not to fall further behind in this area. Finally, there is no test case being committed for this work. As a relatively large change to the code base, in an area where we have traditionally had subtle issues, I find this very disappointing. Can someone from Cloudant help improve the process here going forward? Thanks, Joan - Original Message - > From: "nickva" > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org > Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 5:01:55 PM > Subject: [GitHub] couchdb pull request #454: Point to scheduling replicator > dependencies. > > Github user nickva closed the pull request at: > > https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/454 > > > --- > If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and > have your > reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this > feature > enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, > please > contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA > ticket > with INFRA. > --- >
