I know I argued against "enforcing" commit tags, but how about we make two
tags mandatory, i.e., [api-breaking] and [api-extending]?
2015-01-07 18:15 GMT+01:00 Gyula Fóra <gyf...@apache.org>:
> +1
> This was much needed :)
> 2015.01.07. 18:10 ezt írta ("Max Michels" <m...@data-artisans.com>):
>
> > Nice.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > @Stephan: thanks! :-)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all!
> > >>
> > >> Since the feedback was positive, I added the guidelines to the wiki,
> > with a
> > >> disclaimer that this is being refined.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Apache+Flink+development+guidelines
> > >>
> > >> Stephan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1
> > >> >
> > >> > Let's encourage the use of component tags, I don't see the need for
> > >> > enforcing it. For commits that affect one component, I expect people
> > will
> > >> > use it.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > +1 for the guide and JIRA references.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'd keep the component tags optional though.
> > >> > > As Max said, there is less space to display a meaning message if a
> > >> commit
> > >> > > addresses several components. Separating changes into commits by
> > >> > components
> > >> > > sounds not very practical to me.
> > >> > > Also without a clear definition of when to add which component
> tag,
> > we
> > >> > > cannot rely on them anyway.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Git should also have better tools than browsing commit messages
> when
> > >> > > looking for a commit that changed specific code.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2015-01-07 15:24 GMT+01:00 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I personally like the tags very much. I think the streaming
> > component
> > >> > was
> > >> > > > the first to introduce it and it stuck me as a very good idea.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > +1 to stick with them
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Márton Balassi <
> > >> > balassi.mar...@gmail.com
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > I prefer component declarations, the current best practice
> > comes in
> > >> > > handy
> > >> > > > > when searching through commits. Answering a "when did key
> > selection
> > >> > > > change
> > >> > > > > for streaming?" type question I just had to answer would have
> > been
> > >> a
> > >> > > bit
> > >> > > > > more difficult without it - manageable though.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > In case of streaming it does not yield much to omit the
> > component
> > >> > > > > declaration, most of the time then we would need to add it to
> > the
> > >> > > commit
> > >> > > > > message itself, e.g. :
> > >> > > > > "[streaming] Join API rework", could be e.g. rewritten as
> "Join
> > API
> > >> > > > rework
> > >> > > > > for streaming". I do prefer the former one, because it is not
> > only
> > >> > more
> > >> > > > > straight-forward to understand, but a bit shorter as well.
> > >> > > > > Of course there are counter-examples, like "[streaming]
> > DataStream
> > >> > > > > refactor" -> "DataStream refactor".
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I can accept optional, but would like to keep it strongly
> > >> recommended
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > > streaming. I also find the [docs] tag helpful.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Stephan Ewen <
> se...@apache.org>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Should we put that to an official vote, or wait for people
> to
> > >> > comment
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > (if nobody objects) consider it as agreed on through lazy
> > >> > consensus?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Márton Balassi <
> > >> > > > balassi.mar...@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > +1 for the guide, thanks for clarifying the issue
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Till Rohrmann <
> > >> > > trohrm...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > +1
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > >> > > > > aljos...@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we should have a guide like that somewhere.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Stephan Ewen <
> > >> > > se...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > We have not exactly defined this so far, but it is a
> > good
> > >> > > point
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > do
> > >> > > > > > > > so.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > I personally find it good to have changes associated
> > with
> > >> > an
> > >> > > > > issue,
> > >> > > > > > > > > because
> > >> > > > > > > > > > it allows you to trace back why the change was done.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > To make sure we do not overdo this and impose
> totally
> > >> > > > unnecessary
> > >> > > > > > > > > overhead,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > I would suggest the following:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > *No issue is required for*
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - Small fixes like typos, simple warnings,
> > >> > > adding/improving a
> > >> > > > > > > comment
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - Adding and improving existing pages of the
> > >> > documentation
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - Simple improvements of style / elegance /
> > efficiency
> > >> > > > (simple
> > >> > > > > > > > > rewriting
> > >> > > > > > > > > > a loop / condition / method interaction) if no
> > behavior
> > >> is
> > >> > > > > changed
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > ==> Basically anything that does not change or add
> > >> > > > functionality
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > *An issue is required for*
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Everything else, in particular:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - Anything that changes functionality or behavior
> > >> > relevant
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > users
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - Anything that changes functionality or behavior
> > >> > relevant
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > other
> > >> > > > > > > > > > components
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - Anything that adds a feature
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > I would vote to allow coarse issues and have
> multiple
> > >> > commits
> > >> > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > > reference it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > [FLINK-1234] [runtime] Runtime support some cool new
> > >> thing
> > >> > > > > > > > > > [FLINK-1234] [java api] Add hook for cool thing to
> > java
> > >> api
> > >> > > > > > > > > > [FLINK-1234] [scala api] Add hook for that thing to
> > scala
> > >> > api
> > >> > > > > > > > > > [FLINK-1234] [optimizer] Make optimizer aware that
> it
> > can
> > >> > > > exploit
> > >> > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > > thing
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > The guide lines for pull-requests for committers are
> > as
> > >> > > > follows:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > *A pull request with comments/additional signoff is
> > >> > required
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > anything
> > >> > > > > > > > > > that*
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - breaks the public APIs
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - adds methods to the public APIs (that will need
> > to be
> > >> > > kept
> > >> > > > > > stable
> > >> > > > > > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > > > > > them on)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - alters user-facing behavior (e.g., mutability of
> > >> types,
> > >> > > > null
> > >> > > > > > > value
> > >> > > > > > > > > > handling, window semantics, ...)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - adds user-facing knobs (switches, config
> > parameters,
> > >> > > > > execution
> > >> > > > > > > > option
> > >> > > > > > > > > > on the execution environment)
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - adds additional maven dependencies
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - changes the way components interact
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > - touches highly sensitive and performance
> critical
> > >> > parts,
> > >> > > > such
> > >> > > > > > > > memory
> > >> > > > > > > > > > management or network stack
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > ==> Changes that come with a pull request should
> have
> > one
> > >> > or
> > >> > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > > issues
> > >> > > > > > > > > > associated with them.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Anyone that wants to have comments or some
> additional
> > >> pairs
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > > > eyes
> > >> > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > code should make a pull request as well.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > *Naming scheme for commits*
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > [issue] [component] Message
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > For fixes without an issue, the issue can be
> dropped.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > What do you think? Should we put this into the Wiki?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Greetings,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Stephan
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > >> > > > > > > aljos...@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > I feel we never really talked about this. So,
> > should we
> > >> > > open
> > >> > > > > Jira
> > >> > > > > > > > > issues
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > even for very small fixes and then add the ticket
> > >> number
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > commit?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Or
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > should we just commit those small fixes. Right
> now,
> > I
> > >> > have
> > >> > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > small
> > >> > > > > > > > > > fixes
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > (one is 4 lines, the other one is two lines) for
> the
> > >> > > > > > ValueTypeInfo
> > >> > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > TextValueInputFormat. Very obscure stuff, I know.
> :D
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Aljoscha
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
