Hi Konst, Thanks for digging out this info and share!
Interesting to see that the setting is not configurable and it is not a simple fix. Best, --Yongjun On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Did some research on changing the default order of attachments. > It is not a configuration or INFRA issue. > Turned out to be a controversial topic in the Jira itself, which was > explicitly rejected by the developers. With many users unsatisfied. > > https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-28290 > > I thought it should be a simple thing to fix... > Oh well. Revision numbers is the way to go then for now. > > Thanks, > --Konst > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > > I'm all for changing the default sort order, but it doesn't address the > > point that Steve and I brought up about local downloads. > > > > If you want to push on the INFRA JIRA though, please feel free. I'm +1 > for > > that. > > > > Best, > > Andrew > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Shvachko < > > shv.had...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > I agree that revision numbers are useful if you need to reference a > > > particular attachment. As well as with all your other arguments. > > > My general point is that the infrastructure we use should be convenient > > for > > > the users to do such simple things automatically. Rather than us > > > introducing rules to overcome certain shortcomings of the tool. I think > > if > > > the Attachments list was > > > 1. ordered by date rather than by name, and > > > 2. enumerated, like subtasks are > > > then it would have solved the issue discussed here. > > > > > > I did communicate changing the default ordering for attachments with > > INFRA > > > some time ago. Don't remember if I created a jira. Should we open one > > now? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > --Konst > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Steve Loughran < > ste...@hortonworks.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > a couple more benefits > > > > > > > > 1. when you post a patch you can add a comment like "patch 003 killed > > NPE > > > > in auth", and the comment history then integrations with the > revisions. > > > You > > > > can also do this in your private git repository, so correlate commits > > > there > > > > with patch versions. > > > > > > > > 2. they list in creation order in a directory. > > > > > > > > #2 matters for me as when I create patches I stick them in a dir > > specific > > > > to that JIRA; I can work out what the highest number is and increment > > it > > > by > > > > one for creating a new one...yet retain the whole patch history > > locally. > > > > > > > > I also download external patches to review & apply to an incoming/ > dir; > > > > numbering helps me manage that & to verify that I really am applying > > the > > > > relevant patch. > > > > > > > > Doesn't mean we should change the order though. I don't think that is > > > > something you can do on a per-project basis, so take it to > > > infrastructure@ > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14 December 2014 at 01:33, Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Konst, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the good suggestion, certainly that would help. > > > > > > > > > > Here are the advantages to include revision number in the patch > name: > > > > > > > > > > - we would have the same ordering by name or by date > > > > > - it would be easier to refer to individual patch, say, when we > > need > > > > to > > > > > refer to multiple patches when making a comment (e.g,, > "comparing > > > revX > > > > > with > > > > > revY, here are the pros and cons ..."). > > > > > - when we create a new rev patch file before submitting, if we > use > > > the > > > > > same name as previous one, it would overwrite the previous one > > > > > - when we download patch files to the same directory, depending > on > > > the > > > > > order of downloading, the patches would possibly not appear in > the > > > > order > > > > > that they were submitted. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > --Yongjun > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Konstantin Shvachko < > > > > > shv.had...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem here is not in a patch naming conventions, but in the > > > jira > > > > > > default ordering schema for attachments. > > > > > > Mentioned it on several occasions. Currently attachments use > "sort > > by > > > > > name" > > > > > > sorting as the default. And it should be changed to "sort by > date". > > > > Then > > > > > > you don't need any naming conventions to "adjust" to current > > sorting > > > > > > settings. You just see them in the order submitted and choose the > > > last > > > > > for > > > > > > a review or a commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anybody have permissions & skills to change the default > order > > > type > > > > > for > > > > > > attachments in the Jira? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --Konst > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Tsuyoshi OZAWA < > > > > > ozawa.tsuyo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Yongjun and Harsh for updating Wiki! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > - Tsuyoshi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Yongjun Zhang < > > yzh...@cloudera.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Harsh, I just made a change in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute#Naming_your_patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > based on the discussion in this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yongjun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I've added you in as YongjunZhang. Please let me know if you > > are > > > > > still > > > > > > > >> unable to edit after a relogin. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Yongjun Zhang < > > > > yzh...@cloudera.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > Thanks Allen, Andrew and Tsuyoshi. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > My wiki user name is YongjunZhang, I will appreciate it > very > > > > much > > > > > if > > > > > > > >> > someone can give me the permission to edit the wiki pages. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > --Yongjun > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Wang < > > > > > > > andrew.w...@cloudera.com> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> I just updated the wiki to say that the version number > > format > > > > is > > > > > > > >> preferred. > > > > > > > >> >> Yongjun, if you email out your wiki username, someone (?) > > can > > > > > give > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > >> >> privs. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Allen Wittenauer < > > > > > > a...@altiscale.com> > > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > I think people forget we have a wiki that documents > this > > > and > > > > > > other > > > > > > > >> things > > > > > > > >> >> > ... > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute#Naming_your_patch > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > On Dec 2, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Tsuyoshi OZAWA < > > > > > > > ozawa.tsuyo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> <jiraNameId>.[branchName.]<revisionNum>.patch* > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > +1 for this format. Thanks for starting the > discussion, > > > > > > Yongjun. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > - Tsuyoshi > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Yongjun Zhang < > > > > > > > yzh...@cloudera.com> > > > > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > >> Thank you all for the feedback. > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> About how many digits to use, I personally find it's > > not > > > > > > > annoying > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > >> >> > type > > > > > > > >> >> > >> one extra digit, but as long as we have the rev > > number, > > > it > > > > > > > achieves > > > > > > > >> >> the > > > > > > > >> >> > >> goal of identifying individual patch. > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> About the rest of the name, as long as we keep it > the > > > same > > > > > for > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> >> same > > > > > > > >> >> > >> patch, it would work fine. > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> This boils down to patch naming guideline: > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> * <jiraNameId>.[branchName.]<revisionNum>.patch* > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> - Example jiraNameId: HADOOP-1234, HDFS-4321 > > > > > > > >> >> > >> - When the patch is targeted for trunk, then > there > > > is > > > > no > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > > >> >> > the > > > > > > > >> >> > >> branchName portion, otherwise, specify the > branchName > > > > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > > >> >> > Example: > > > > > > > >> >> > >> branch1, branch2. > > > > > > > >> >> > >> - It's recommended to use three digits for > > > > <revisionNum> > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >> >> better > > > > > > > >> >> > >> sorting of different versions of patches. > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> Would anyone who has the privilege please help to > > modify > > > > the > > > > > > > >> following > > > > > > > >> >> > page > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute#Naming_your_patch > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> accordingly? > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> --Yongjun > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Colin McCabe < > > > > > > > >> cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Karthik Kambatla < > > > > > > > >> >> ka...@cloudera.com> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> Yongjun, thanks for starting this thread. I > > personally > > > > > like > > > > > > > >> Steve's > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> suggestions, but think two digits should be > enough. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> I propose we limit the restrictions to versioning > > the > > > > > > patches > > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> version > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> numbers and .patch extension. People have their > own > > > > > > > preferences > > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > > >> >> > the > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> rest of the name (e.g. MAPREDUCE, MapReduce, MR, > mr, > > > > > mapred) > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > >> I > > > > > > > >> >> > don't > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> see a gain in forcing everyone to use one. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> Putting the suggestions (tight and loose) on the > > wiki > > > > > would > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > >> new > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> contributors as well. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> +1 > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> best, > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> Colin > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Eric Payne > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> <erichadoo...@yahoo.com.invalid > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> +1.The "different color for newest patch" doesn't > > > work > > > > > very > > > > > > > >> well if > > > > > > > >> >> > you > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> are color blind, so I do appreciate a revision > > number > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> name. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> From: Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:37 PM > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> Subject: Re: a friendly suggestion for developers > > > when > > > > > > > uploading > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> patches > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> Thanks Harsh for the info and Andrew for sharing > > the > > > > > > script. > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > >> >> looks > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> that > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> the script is intelligent enough to pick the > latest > > > > > > > attachment > > > > > > > >> even > > > > > > > >> >> > if > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> all > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> attachments have the same name. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> Yet, I hope we use the following as the guideline > > for > > > > > patch > > > > > > > >> names: > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> <*projectName*>-<*jiraNum*>-<*revNum*>.patch > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> So we can easily identify individual patch revs. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> Thanks. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> --Yongjun > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Wang < > > > > > > > >> >> > andrew.w...@cloudera.com > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>> This might be a good time to mention my > > fetch-patch > > > > > > script, > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > >> use > > > > > > > >> >> it > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> to > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>> easily download the latest attachment on a jira: > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/umbrant/dotfiles/blob/master/bin/fetch-patch > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Harsh J < > > > > > > > ha...@cloudera.com> > > > > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> For the same filename, you can observe also > that > > > the > > > > > JIRA > > > > > > > >> colors > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> the > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> latest one to be different than the older ones > > > > > > > automatically - > > > > > > > >> >> this > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> is > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> what I rely on. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Yongjun > Zhang < > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> yzh...@cloudera.com > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> Hi, > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> When I look at patches uploaded to jiras, from > > > time > > > > to > > > > > > > time I > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> notice > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>> that > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> different revisions of the patch is uploaded > > with > > > > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > > >> patch > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> file > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> name, > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> some time for quite a few times. It's > confusing > > > > which > > > > > is > > > > > > > >> which. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> I'd suggest that as a guideline, we do the > > > following > > > > > > when > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> uploading a > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> patch: > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> - include a revision number in the patch > file > > > > name.A > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> - include a comment, stating that a new > patch > > is > > > > > > > uploaded, > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> including > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> the > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> revision number of the patch in the comment. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> This way, it's easier to refer to a specific > > > version > > > > > of > > > > > > a > > > > > > > >> patch, > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> and > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> to > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> know which patch a comment is made about. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> Hope that makes sense to you. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> Thanks. > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> --Yongjun > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> -- > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> Harsh J > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > -- > > > > > > > >> >> > > - Tsuyoshi > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > >> Harsh J > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > - Tsuyoshi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or > > entity > > > to > > > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is > confidential, > > > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the > > reader > > > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified > > > that > > > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > > immediately > > > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > > > > > > > >
