As popular as the github workflow is, there are some things I'm not a big
fan of. For one, the review tends to cause a flurry of separate
notifications as opposed to a single atomic set of comments.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Arpit Agarwal <aagar...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> I think someone mentioned this earlier - the concern was keeping the review
> comments searchable from one location, ideally within Jira.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Ravi Prakash <ravi...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just out of left field: Since we already migrated to git (Thanks everyone
> > for that effort) should we try using github's UI? Isn't that how the
> > majority of the rest of the world started doing code reviews?
> >
> >
> >      On Monday, January 26, 2015 3:57 PM, Arpit Agarwal <
> > aagar...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  Thanks for that data point Chris.
> >
> > It looks like reviews.apache.org no longer works. hadoop-hdfs-git may be
> > pointing to an outdated repository. I'll file a ticket with Infra.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@hortonworks.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > reviews.apache.org is backed by Review Board, and I've had a very
> > positive
> > > experience with that tool on other projects.  HADOOP-9629 is a Hadoop
> > patch
> > > where we decided to go ahead and use it, and I think it helped.  AFAIK,
> > > there is no rule against using it in Hadoop, but it does have the side
> > > effect of splitting part of the conversation out of jira.  If Crucible
> > can
> > > keep all the review notes sync'd with the jira and searchable, then
> that
> > > would be very interesting.
> > >
> > > Chris Nauroth
> > > Hortonworks
> > > http://hortonworks.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Arpit Agarwal <
> aagar...@hortonworks.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMO the number one improvement would be a web-based review tool. We
> > could
> > > > evaluate Atlassian Crucible since it claims to integrate well with
> > Jira.
> > > I
> > > > have not tried https://reviews.apache.org/r/new/.
> > > >
> > > > Some easy improvements that were also raised by others on the private
> > > list:
> > > > - Encourage contributors to batch related trivial fixes into a single
> > > > patch.
> > > > - Require more detailed descriptions with non-trivial patch
> > > contributions.
> > > > For patches that require knowledge of a specific subsystem a
> > > > background+design note would be a good start.
> > > > - Eliminate CHANGES.txt. This came up on the dev list not too long
> ago
> > > and
> > > > IIRC Allen did a PoC.
> > > >
> > > > I am not optimistic about Gerrit from past experience. It does help
> > gate
> > > > checkins and enforce pre-commit checks (good). I did not find it
> > > > user-friendly and it will be an additional hurdle for contributors to
> > > > understand (bad).
> > > >
> > > > Andrew, can the community build on your distributed pre-commit work
> to
> > > make
> > > > it production ready?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Arpit
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Andrew Wang <
> > andrew.w...@cloudera.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Let's move this over to common-dev@, general@ is normally used for
> > > > project
> > > > > announcements rather than discussion topics.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to summarize a few things mentioned on the private@
> thread,
> > > > > related to streamlining the code submission process.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Gerrit was brought up again, as it has in the past, as something
> > that
> > > > > could make the actual process of reviewing and committing a lot
> > easier.
> > > > > This would be especially helpful for small patches, where the
> > mechanics
> > > > of
> > > > > committing can take longer than reviewing the patch.
> > > > > - There were also concerns about forking discussions between JIRA
> and
> > > > > Gerrit. This has been an issue in Spark, and we'd like to keep
> > > > discussions
> > > > > and issue tracking centralized.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Some talk about how to improve precommit. Right now it takes
> hours
> > to
> > > > run
> > > > > the unit tests, which slows down patch iterations. One solution is
> > > > running
> > > > > tests in parallel (and even distributed). Previous distributed
> > > > experiments
> > > > > have done a full unit test run in a couple minutes, but it'd be a
> > fair
> > > > > amount of work to actually make this production ready.
> > > > > - Also mention of putting in place more linting and static
> analysis.
> > > > > Automating this will save reviewer time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Andrew
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In some cases, contributor responded to review comments and
> > attached
> > > > > > patches addressing the comments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Later on, there was simply no response to the latest patch - even
> > > with
> > > > > > follow-on ping.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wish this aspect can be improved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze <
> > > > > > s29752-hadoopgene...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi contributors,
> > > > > > > I would like to (re)start a discussion regrading to our patch
> > > review
> > > > > > > process.  A similar discussion has been happened in a the
> hadoop
> > > > > private
> > > > > > > mailing list, which is inappropriate.
> > > > > > > Here is the problem:The patch available queues become longer
> and
> > > > > longer.
> > > > > > > It seems that we never can catch up.  There are patches sitting
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > queues for years.  How could we speed up?
> > > > > > > Regrads,Tsz-Wo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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.
>

Reply via email to