Thank you tison!
We don't explicitly set the rules for issue titles and force ppl to follow.
Just suggest you can follow the same rule to write issue titles if you
ensure the involved [type] and [scope] like this example [1].
Otherwise, you can write as usual.
[1]
Anyway, it's a separate topic to discuss. If you want to discuss issue
types and whether to label components, please start another thread.
Best,
tison.
tison 于2022年8月25日周四 13:12写道：
> From current issue templates, we already sort issues into bug reports,
> improvements, doc changes, flaky
>From current issue templates, we already sort issues into bug reports,
improvements, doc changes, flaky tests, and PIPs. They're types. [type] and
[component] described here are applied to commit messages, not for issues.
For components, we may encourage contributors to try their best to sort
> Agree with applying the same rules ( [type] [scope] summary) for writing
issue titles.
It cannot be guarded by check so I think it only increases contributors'
overhead.
Instead, we can try to find out some integration if we can use the GitHub
issue forms dropdown widget to allow contributors
Thanks Max!
Agree with applying the same rules ( [type] [scope] summary) for writing issue
titles.
On 2022/08/25 02:48:51 Max Xu wrote:
> LGTM.
>
> And I think we should also update our issue templates.
>
> Best,
> Max Xu
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Yu wrote:
>
> > Hi team,
> >
LGTM.
And I think we should also update our issue templates.
Best,
Max Xu
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Yu wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> Many thanks for your feedback! We've adjusted the convention based on your
> suggestions!
>
> Below is a brief summary of what we have reached a consensus on:
>
+1
Penghui
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Yu wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> Many thanks for your feedback! We've adjusted the convention based on your
> suggestions!
>
> Below is a brief summary of what we have reached a consensus on:
>
>
>
> 1. Convention
>
> Continue to follow our
Hi team,
Many thanks for your feedback! We've adjusted the convention based on your
suggestions!
Below is a brief summary of what we have reached a consensus on:
1. Convention
Continue to follow our existing convention (it's customized on Agular) [1]
2.
Hi Jiuming, Yunze, tison,
Thanks for your vote!
Hi tison,
> "packaging logics"
> For example, build the docker image, build & publish shell scripts.
If you refer to these changes, they belong to [build] scope.
Yu and Zixuan
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 1:25 PM tison wrote:
> Hi
Hi Yu,
Reply inline:
> Besides, the existing scope, [tool], refers to Pulsar CLI tools [1].
> We're considering to rename it to [cli] since:
Make sense.
> "deployment logic" If so, can we ignore this?
I saw you already remove [deploy] scope. No comment here. It should be fine.
> "packaging
A, A
Thanks,
Yunze
> 2022年8月22日 12:47，Yu 写道：
>
> Hi developers,
>
> Two quick questions need your vote!
>
> Which do you prefer?
>
>
>
> # 1. Use "branch" or "BP"?
>
> Choice A: [fix][broker][branch-2.9] xxx
> Choice B: [fix][broker][BP-2.9] xxx
>
>
A
A
Thanks
Tao Jiuming
> 2022年8月22日 下午12:47，Yu 写道：
>
> Hi developers,
>
> Two quick questions need your vote!
>
> Which do you prefer?
>
>
>
> # 1. Use "branch" or "BP"?
>
> Choice A: [fix][broker][branch-2.9] xxx
> Choice B: [fix][broker][BP-2.9] xxx
>
>
Hi developers,
Two quick questions need your vote!
Which do you prefer?
# 1. Use "branch" or "BP"?
Choice A: [fix][broker][branch-2.9] xxx
Choice B: [fix][broker][BP-2.9] xxx
# 2. for the [scope], use "misc" or "chore"? [1]
Hi tison,
Thanks for your suggestions! We have several questions on [build]:
> build - all things related to the build system, including tools,
deployment logic, maven changes, packaging logics, docker image, build
scripts.
# 1. "tools"
What do you refer to?
Thank you tison and Zixuan!
Agree on the following aspects:
# 1. Remove 3 [scope]s
- Remove [workflow] since it can be replaced with other scopes
eg.
"[feat][workflow] Add instructions for previewing website changes"
can be written as
"[feat][doc] Add
+1 for fcn -> fn
+1 for ts -> offloader
+1 * ci - CI workflow changes or debugging.
+1 * build - all things related to the build system, including tools,
deployment logic, maven changes, packaging logics, docker image,
buildscripts.
`pkg` should belong to the `admin` scope, so suggest using the
BTW, how can I sort changes for the metadata store?
Best,
tison.
tison 于2022年8月19日周五 17:44写道：
> To proposal a workable solution, I suggest:
>
> replace
>
> * pkg
> * tool
> * deploy
> * ci
> * workflow
> * build
>
> with
>
> * ci - CI workflow changes or debugging.
> * build - all things
To proposal a workable solution, I suggest:
replace
* pkg
* tool
* deploy
* ci
* workflow
* build
with
* ci - CI workflow changes or debugging.
* build - all things related to the build system, including tools,
deployment logic, maven changes, packaging logics, docker image, build
scripts.
> I intended to mean changes to "process / standard / guide" [2] rather
than "CI workflow", but it still causes confusion.
How can a PR be relevant to these things? I think the result should be
either CI workflow changes or document updates. We don't need a dedicated
"workflow" in such
As for the type candidates:
LGTM. No comment here.
As for the scope candidates:
+1 for dep -> deps
+1 for fcn -> fn
Among most communities and language conventions, the abbr of function is
fn (Rust), fun (Erlang), or func (Golang). No fcn IIRC. I'd prefer the
short one, fn.
+1 for ts ->
Thanks, Zixuan!
> It should be the same thing. If I make a mistake, please tell me.
Sorry, I misunderstood it. I’ve removed the “rest” scope.
As we discussed just now, we reached consensuses on the following aspects:
- Use “deps” to represent “dependency” since “dep”
Thanks, tison!
> What's the difference between ci, workflow, and build?
As explained in [Guide] Pulsar Pull Request Naming Convention [1],
- ci:
CI configuration files and scripts.
- build:
build system or external dependencies.
- workflow:
I intended to mean changes to "process / standard /
> Since here uses a singular noun, how about using "dep"?
Sometimes we will update multiple dependencies so I want to use the `deps`.
> Are "security" and "tiered-storage" too long?
Although the word is very long, it will look very clear.
> "rest" here refers to client library REST [2]
And the
Thanks for driving this discussion @Yu!
I'll go through the whole candidates tomorrow. When I try to use these
candidates now, I find one thing confusing and here is a quick question:
What's the difference between ci, workflow, and build? I make a change on
checkstyle rules, which one should I
Thank you all!
Hi Zixuan and all,
> - dep (abbr for dependency) -> deps
"dep" is abbr for "dependency"
while "deps" can be abbr for "dependencies"
Since here uses a singular noun, how about using "dep"?
> - fcn (abbr for function) -> func
+1
> - sec (abbr for security) -> security
> - ts (abbr
Thank yu for your work! Overall looks good to me, but I would like to
request changes.
I prefer:
- dep (abbr for dependency) -> deps
- fcn (abbr for function) -> func
- sec (abbr for security) -> security
- ts (abbr for tiered storage) -> tiered-storage
- txn (abbr for transaction)
- rest
LGTM.
> - Cherry pick changes [4]
> Choice A: [fix][broker][branch-2.9] xxx
> Choice B: [fix][broker] xxx. And add "cherry pick xxx to branch-2.9" in the
> PR description.
I prefer A.
Thanks,
Zike Yang
Zike Yang
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 7:41 PM Qiang Huang wrote:
>
> Great work. I prefer
Great work. I prefer "Choice A".
> Cherry pick changes [4]
> Choice A: [fix][broker][branch-2.9] xxx
Yunze Xu 于2022年8月17日周三 18:32写道：
> LGTM.
>
> Thanks,
> Yunze
>
>
>
>
> > 2022年8月17日 11:15，Yu 写道：
> >
> > Hi team,
> >
> > For PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions [1]
>
LGTM.
Thanks,
Yunze
> 2022年8月17日 11:15，Yu 写道：
>
> Hi team,
>
> For PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions [1]
>
> How to define [type] and [scope]? Do these abbreviations LGTY?
>
> *[Guide] Pulsar Pull Request Naming Convention* [2] contains everything
> about the
Hi team,
For PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions [1]
How to define [type] and [scope]? Do these abbreviations LGTY?
*[Guide] Pulsar Pull Request Naming Convention* [2] contains everything
about the definition. Feel free to check and comment!
~~
TL;DR
PR
30 matches
Mail list logo
