But thats very long, and together with the issue tag I almost always
have I lose a lot of my precious 80 characters.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>>
