If there are no more big objections, I will enable it after the 26th of December to see how it can work.
This will also be a naturally slower period due to Holidays and New Year's eve, so even if it disrupts someone initially it will have a smaller radius blast potentially. I will also make sure to communicate it in a few of our channels that we are experimenting with and be on the lookout to help people if they will have problems with it. J. On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 8:31 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > Amogh: > > > Should we enforce creating a follow up Github issue in our case for the > same? This would solve the issue of unfinished PRs > while also giving confidence that the comments won't be ignored. > > I think we already do that in a number of cases. And I would not enforce > it, especially that (unlike "do not merge until resolved") it's not > automatable. Here I would actually say what Ash said about being "adult". > The whole idea is not because we do not trust people to do the right thing > - it's there to make sure that we do not forget about some open > conversation (and that goes to both - author and reviewer). > > For the author, this will be a sign to see that there is "something" to do > when there are conversations that are still open. For the reviewer, it > should also be a sign "I can merge it now, really" or "let's see if there > is anything left to address here, I have not realised there is this one > more comment not addressed". > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 5:16 AM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I generally like the idea of adding this rule but I have a few concerns >> around the amount of unfinished/incomplete PRs this could lead to. >> >> We generally follow such things in my org where we try to resolve all the >> comments from the maintainers >> before performing a merge. But what we also do is that if a comment/ask >> from maintainer is outside bounds for that >> a particular PR, we generally create follow up JIRAs and then follow up on >> it later. >> >> Should we enforce creating a follow up Github issue in our case for the >> same? This would solve the issue of unfinished PRs >> while also giving confidence that the comments won't be ignored. >> >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Amogh Desai >> >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 5:11 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> >> > Dennis: >> > >> > > I guess as long as we are not dictating that the person who left the >> > comment has to resolve it, then I'm alright with trying this. I don't >> want >> > a PR to get blocked because of a drive-by comment. >> > >> > Yep. I think it is perfectly fine for the person who reviews and wants >> to >> > merge the code to resolve such obvious cases where a comment was just a >> > "comment" not an invitation to conversation. Or when you are an author, >> and >> > you see "All right - I am really done with it, now it's time to resolve >> all >> > the remaining conversations". >> > >> > Note that not every "comment" is one that gets into "resolvable" >> > conversation. There are generic comments for the whole PR that do not >> land >> > as "resolvable" conversations. Only the "suggestions" and comments for a >> > particular line (or lines) of code are "conversations" - when they >> relate >> > to a particular line of code. And those tend to be actual issues, >> questions >> > or doubts that **should** get some reaction IMHO. >> > >> > J. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:57 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis >> > <ferru...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > > Interesting. I generally try to follow that policy as a best >> practice >> > on >> > > my own PRs just so I make sure I didn't miss comments, but there are >> also >> > > times I intentionally leave certain discussions "out in the open". I >> > > guess as long as we are not dictating that the person who left the >> > comment >> > > has to resolve it, then I'm alright with trying this. I don't want a >> PR >> > to >> > > get blocked because of a drive-by comment. >> > > >> > > Seems like this is easily reversible and we can give it a trial run >> and >> > > decide later if we want to keep it. >> > > >> > > >> > > - ferruzzi >> > > >> > > >> > > ________________________________ >> > > From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 12:45 PM >> > > To: dev@airflow.apache.org >> > > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [DISCUSS] "Require >> > conversation >> > > resolution" in our PRs before merge? >> > > >> > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >> not >> > > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and >> > know >> > > the content is safe. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur >> externe. >> > > Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne >> > pouvez >> > > pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain >> > que >> > > le contenu ne présente aucun risque. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Given the slow down over the holidays I don't think two weeks will >> be >> > > enough - make it 4? >> > > >> > > Ah. True :) >> > > >> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 9:41 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Given the slow down over the holidays I don't think two weeks will >> be >> > > > enough - make it 4? >> > > > >> > > > On 19 December 2023 20:33:23 GMT, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > >Ash: >> > > > > >> > > > >> I.e. Convention over enforcement and treating people as mature >> > adults >> > > > not >> > > > >children who need guard rails. >> > > > > >> > > > >I think it's quite the opposite, Both 1) 2) and 3) reasoning is >> more >> > of >> > > > the >> > > > >aid for whoever looks at the PR that there are still some >> > conversations >> > > > not >> > > > >addressed, I personally feel it's treating people as more adult, >> when >> > > you >> > > > >allow them to unilaterally say "I believe the conversation is >> > resolved" >> > > > > >> > > > >Bolke: >> > > > > >> > > > >> This reflect my feelings as well. I'm not convinced we are >> solving >> > > > >something that needs to be solved. >> > > > > >> > > > >I think 1) 2) 3) are real problems that it addresses. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >If we have no "strong" -1s we can give it a try. It's not a one-way >> > > > street. >> > > > >We can always go back if we see it slows us down or annoys people. >> > > > > >> > > > >We can even set a way how we assess it. Maybe everyone should just >> > > collect >> > > > >cases where it caused some problems - in two weeks or so (should be >> > > > enough). >> > > > >Why not everyone who actively participates in the PR review process >> > > brings >> > > > >their experience and explains if it caused them unnecessary burden >> for >> > > no >> > > > >gain (also the opposite - where it helped). >> > > > > >> > > > >J. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 9:15 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Answering some of the recent questions. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Daniel: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > E.g. when you "resolve" a conversation, then you make it less >> > > > visible. >> > > > >> This isn't always a good thing. Sometimes you just want to +1 >> it. >> > > When >> > > > >> others visit the PR, then they will not see the conversation. >> Maybe >> > > they >> > > > >> would want to engage in discussion. And when you get a >> notification >> > in >> > > > an >> > > > >> email about a comment and want to engage and respond, I've had >> > issues >> > > > with >> > > > >> following links to conversations after resolution before. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> True. However, you still see that there was conversation (and can >> > > always >> > > > >> un-collapse it). Resolving conversation does not "remove" it. >> > Actually >> > > > when >> > > > >> the conversation is resolved. >> > > > >> Also you can see it in the "conversations menu". And well, >> > assumption >> > > is >> > > > >> that resolving conversation makes it well - resolved :). And +1 >> > until >> > > > it is >> > > > >> resolved is still fine and cool (or even after). And as a >> > maintainer, >> > > > you >> > > > >> can always "unresolve" such a conversation. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> [image: image.png] >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Hussein: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > The proposed rule isn't a bad idea, especially for ensuring >> that >> > > > >> maintainers wanting to merge have reviewed all conversions. >> However, >> > > > it's >> > > > >> essential to permit them to close open conversations if they find >> > the >> > > > >> comments have been addressed. Only ping the commenter if >> uncertain, >> > > > with a >> > > > >> maximum waiting time (let's say 48 hours on workdays). If the >> > > commenter >> > > > >> doesn't reply and there are no other open conversations, we can >> > merge. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Absolutely. I think it should be fine to have either the author >> or >> > the >> > > > >> maintainer to resolve conversations - it all depends on context >> and >> > > > >> problem. I tend to think about "resolving" conversation as a >> > statement >> > > > of >> > > > >> intention / understanding rather than "certainty". It might be >> > either >> > > > the >> > > > >> author or the maintainer who "BELIEVES" that the conversation is >> > > > resolved. >> > > > >> It's subjective, not objective IMHO. We - as humans - can make >> > > mistakes >> > > > but >> > > > >> as long as we have good intentions, it's fine to resolve >> > conversation >> > > by >> > > > >> either. What matters here is that no conversation is simply "left >> > > > >> unaddressed" and that there was a deliberate action on each >> > > > conversation. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> From >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/commenting-on-a-pull-request#resolving-conversations >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > You can resolve a conversation in a pull request if you opened >> the >> > > > pull >> > > > >> request or if you have write access to the repository where the >> pull >> > > > >> request was opened. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> So in our case - either the author, or one of the maintainers can >> > mark >> > > > the >> > > > >> conversation as resolved. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > Could we forbid the authors from closing conversations? >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I am afraid not. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 7:31 PM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >>> The proposed rule isn't a bad idea, especially for ensuring that >> > > > >>> maintainers wanting to merge have reviewed all conversions. >> > However, >> > > > it's >> > > > >>> essential to permit them to close open conversations if they >> find >> > the >> > > > >>> comments have been addressed. Only ping the commenter if >> uncertain, >> > > > with a >> > > > >>> maximum waiting time (let's say 48 hours on workdays). If the >> > > commenter >> > > > >>> doesn't reply and there are no other open conversations, we can >> > > merge. >> > > > >>> Additionally, should we wait for all open conversations or only >> > those >> > > > >>> opened by maintainers? Could we forbid the authors from closing >> > > > >>> conversations? >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> On Tue 19 Dec 2023 at 19:19, Daniel Standish >> > > > >>> <daniel.stand...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > +1 >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 9:36 AM Pierre Jeambrun < >> > > > pierrejb...@gmail.com> >> > > > >>> > wrote: >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > > This is something I already try to apply on my own PRs, >> never >> > > merge >> > > > >>> > before >> > > > >>> > > explicitly solving all conversations. >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > Also for a reviewer, I feel like this gives more confidence >> to >> > > the >> > > > >>> fact >> > > > >>> > > that the PR is ready, and indeed we are less subject to >> > missing a >> > > > >>> > > discussion or something going on making it 'not ok' to >> merge. >> > > Going >> > > > >>> over >> > > > >>> > > the entire thread before merging a PR to double check that >> > > > everything >> > > > >>> is >> > > > >>> > > actually addressed can be time consuming. That is especially >> > true >> > > > if >> > > > >>> > things >> > > > >>> > > are not marked as resolved. >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > I agree that this is something that adds up some work, but I >> > > think >> > > > it >> > > > >>> is >> > > > >>> > > worth the experiment and see what happens. We can easily >> revert >> > > if >> > > > we >> > > > >>> are >> > > > >>> > > not happy with the way it goes. >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > The workload will most likely be on the contributors' side, >> > that >> > > > will >> > > > >>> > have >> > > > >>> > > to actually address and solve all the conversations. >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > Le mar. 19 déc. 2023 à 16:44, Vincent Beck < >> > vincb...@apache.org> >> > > a >> > > > >>> > écrit : >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > > I am wondering too if this is not something that gives >> more >> > > work >> > > > to >> > > > >>> > > > maintainer without real benefits. A maintainer can still >> mark >> > > all >> > > > >>> > > > conversations as resolved and merge the PR if he wants. >> > > Though, I >> > > > >>> > > > understand there is the intention here as oppose as today >> > > where a >> > > > >>> > > > maintainer can just miss some comments. I am quite >> doubtful >> > > but I >> > > > >>> am in >> > > > >>> > > to >> > > > >>> > > > try it out and see how it goes. >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > On 2023/12/19 14:55:13 Bolke de Bruin wrote: >> > > > >>> > > > > I'm less enthusiastic. What problem are we solving with >> > this? >> > > > If >> > > > >>> > > > something has not been addressed it can be done in a >> follow >> > up >> > > or >> > > > >>> of if >> > > > >>> > > it >> > > > >>> > > > was just part of the conversation it won't have impact on >> the >> > > > code. >> > > > >>> In >> > > > >>> > > > addition, the ones that need to deal with it are the ones >> > > merging >> > > > >>> and >> > > > >>> > > those >> > > > >>> > > > are not necessarily the same as the ones contributing. >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > So for the friction that it creates with both the >> committer >> > > and >> > > > >>> the >> > > > >>> > > > contributer what is the benefit? >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > B. >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > Sent from my iPhone >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > On 19 Dec 2023, at 15:45, Wei Lee < >> weilee...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > +1 for trying and observing how it works. My concern >> is >> > > that >> > > > >>> > adding >> > > > >>> > > > an additional obstacle might lead to more unfinished PRs. >> It >> > > > might >> > > > >>> be >> > > > >>> > > > helpful to give the contributor some guidance on when we >> can >> > > > resolve >> > > > >>> > the >> > > > >>> > > > comments. >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > Best, >> > > > >>> > > > > > Wei >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> On Dec 19, 2023, at 9:28 PM, Andrey Anshin < >> > > > >>> > > andrey.ans...@taragol.is> >> > > > >>> > > > wrote: >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> We could try and if found it slows down for some >> reason >> > we >> > > > >>> always >> > > > >>> > > > might >> > > > >>> > > > > >> revert it back. >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> Just one suggestion, sometimes discussion contains >> some >> > > > useful >> > > > >>> > > > information, >> > > > >>> > > > > >> e.g. "What the reason of finally decision", "Useful >> > > > information >> > > > >>> > why >> > > > >>> > > it >> > > > >>> > > > > >> should works by suggested way, or should not work", >> > which >> > > > >>> might be >> > > > >>> > > > useful >> > > > >>> > > > > >> for someone who investigate why this changes was >> made, >> > so >> > > in >> > > > >>> this >> > > > >>> > > > case I >> > > > >>> > > > > >> would suggest to create link in the main thread of PR >> > with >> > > > >>> useful >> > > > >>> > > > > >> discussions. >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 17:16, Jarek Potiuk < >> > > > ja...@potiuk.com> >> > > > >>> > > wrote: >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hey everyone, >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> TL;DR; I have a small proposal/discussion proposal >> to >> > > > modify a >> > > > >>> > bit >> > > > >>> > > > the >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> branch protection rules for Airflow. Why don't we >> add a >> > > > >>> > protection >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> rule in our PRs that requires all the comments in >> the >> > PRs >> > > > to >> > > > >>> be >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> "marked as resolved" before merging the PR ? >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> I have been following myself - for quite some time >> - >> > an >> > > > >>> approach >> > > > >>> > > > that >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> whenever there are comments/suggestions/doubts in my >> > PRs >> > > I >> > > > do >> > > > >>> not >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> merge the PR until I **think** all of those have >> been >> > > > >>> addressed >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> (somehow). >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> The resolution might not be what the person >> commenting >> > > > wants >> > > > >>> > > > directly, >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> it might be "I hear your comment, and there are good >> > > > reasons >> > > > >>> to >> > > > >>> > do >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> otherwise" or simply saying - "I know it could be >> done >> > > this >> > > > >>> way >> > > > >>> > > but I >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> think otherwise" etc. etc. But sometimes I miss that >> > > there >> > > > is >> > > > >>> a >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> comment that I have not reacted to, I skipped it >> > > > unconsciously >> > > > >>> > etc. >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> I think having "some" kind of reaction to comments >> and >> > > > >>> deliberate >> > > > >>> > > "I >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> believe the conversation is resolved" is a very good >> > > thing >> > > > and >> > > > >>> > > having >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> the author making a deliberate effort to "mark the >> > > > >>> conversation >> > > > >>> > as >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> resolved" is a sign it's been read, though about and >> > > > >>> consciously >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> reacted to. >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> I've learned recently that you can add protection >> rule >> > > that >> > > > >>> will >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> require all conversations on PR to be resolved >> before >> > > > merging >> > > > >>> > it, I >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> even went to a great length to create (and get >> merged) >> > a >> > > > PR to >> > > > >>> > ASF >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> infra to enable it via .asf.yml feature >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> ( >> https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-p6/pull/1740 >> > ) >> > > - >> > > > so >> > > > >>> we >> > > > >>> > > can >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> enable it now by a simple PR to our .asf.yaml >> enabling >> > > it. >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'd love to try it - but of course it will have to >> > > change >> > > > a >> > > > >>> bit >> > > > >>> > > the >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> workflow of everyone, where the author (or >> reviewer, or >> > > > >>> > maintainer) >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> will have to mark all conversations as resolved >> > > > deliberately >> > > > >>> > before >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> merging PR. >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'd love to enable it - at least to try and see how >> it >> > > can >> > > > >>> work - >> > > > >>> > > but >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> I understand it might add a bit of burden for >> everyone, >> > > > >>> however, >> > > > >>> > I >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> think it might be worth it. >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> WDYT? >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> J. >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> > > dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >> > > > dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > >>> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> > dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >>> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >> > > dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > >>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >> > dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > >>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >> dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
