On Oct 21, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> Code reviews are great. > > However, we will need to change our behavior quite a bit if code is to make > it in within a reasonable amount of time as code reviews today often don't > get done in a timely fashion. Just look at it as an incremental step forward. Reviews could just be a "ship it", like we see many times on RB. The point is really to track the commits better and have the RMs (whatever many we have), to do the commits and construct the release branches. This would be much better than the free for all we have right now and would redirect development to feature branches and bugfix branches until merged. And fwiw, I do believe that RM is a full time job. > > In a volunteer community, it's hard to "assign" work (including code > reviews) to people (let alone expect it done on your schedule). > > This is, of course, different at most of our day jobs where managers are in > a position to make sure the community is responsive. > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I like the way Stephen split it. >> Here is my vote. >> +1 on using github pull requests. >> +1 on compulsory code reviews and PRs even for committers and CI build pass >> before merging. >> +1 on merges from 4.5 to master and no individual commits(or cherry-picks) >> to the branches >> +0 on RM for master and commits gated by him. I agree with Stephen that >> code reviewer should be doing the push. But, I am ok with RM doing >> it(assuming we have a volunteer ;) ). >> >> +1 on any changes independently. >> >> >> ~Rajani >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Stephen Turner <stephen.tur...@citrix.com >> <javascript:;>> >> wrote: >> >>> As I just said in the other thread -- but to repeat it here in the >>> PROPOSAL thread -- >>> >>> I am +1 on using github pull requests. >>> >>> I am +1 on all code changes being reviewed by a committer other than the >>> author, as well as undergoing some automated CI testing, before the pull >>> request is merged. >>> >>> I am +0 on only the master RM merging the pull request. I don't want the >>> author to push the code, but I think the code reviewer could do this; in >>> practice the RM will not be able to review everything again so is likely >> to >>> rubber-stamp the results of the code review / automated testing. But I >>> could live with the master RM doing it. >>> >>> I am +1 on moving ahead with any of these parts individually, rather than >>> waiting for everything to be in place before doing anything. >>> >>> -- >>> Stephen Turner >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com <javascript:;>] >>> Sent: 18 October 2014 10:00 >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;> >>> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Move to github PR only during moratorium on commit >>> >>> After [1] I would like to officially bring up the following proposal. >>> >>> [Proposal] >>> ---- >>> All commits come through github PR, *even* for committers. We declare a >>> moratorium period (agreed suspension of activity) during which direct >>> commit to master is forbidden. >>> Only the master RM is allowed to merge PR in master (we define a master >>> RM). If direct commit to master is done, master RM reverts without >> warning. >>> Same for 4.5 and 4.4. branches. >>> ---- >>> >>> This is drastic and I am sure some folks will not like it, but here is my >>> justification for such a measure: >>> >>> [Reasons]: >>> ---- >>> Our commit and release processes have so far been based on the idea that >>> development happens on master and that a release branch is cut from >> master >>> (unstable development branch). Then a different set of community members >>> harden the release branch, QA and bring it to GA level. During that time >>> development keeps on going in master. >>> >>> This is an OK process if we have the luxury of having a QA team and can >>> cope with split personality of being developers and release managers. >>> >>> My point of view is that as a community we cannot afford such a split >>> brain organization and our experience overt the last year proves my point >>> (delayed release date, broken builds, features merged without warning...) >>> >>> We can avoid this by cutting a release branch from a stable one (from the >>> start), then as you (Daan) have mentioned several times, fix bugs in the >>> release branch and merge them back in the stable source of the release >> (be >>> it master). >>> >>> Feature development need to be done outside master, period. Not only for >>> non-committers but also for committers. And merge request need to be >>> called. This will help review and avoid surprises. >>> >>> New git workflow were proposed and shutdown, mostly calling for better CI >>> to solve quality issues. CI will not solve our quality issues alone. We >>> need to better police ourselves. >>> >>> To avoid long discussions, I propose this simple but drastic measure. We >>> move all our commits to github PR until 4.5 is out, this stands for >>> committers and non-committers, direct commits (especially to master) >> would >>> be reverted immediately. >>> ---- >>> >>> Our development and release process is broken, we cannot continue like >>> this, let's fix it. >>> >>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/xeliefp3oleq3g54 >>> >>> -sebastien >>> >> > > > -- > *Mike Tutkowski* > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > o: 303.746.7302 > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
