Thanks Martin! can you add two more fields?
- Builds locally (mvn clean verify) - Documentation updated or not updates necessary Best, Fabian 2016-02-19 9:35 GMT+01:00 Martin Liesenberg <martin.liesenb...@gmail.com>: > Cool, if no one objects, I'll create a JIRA ticket and open a corresponding > PR during the weekend. > > Best regards > Martin > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, 17:36 Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > Sounds like a good idea to me to create a checklist like this. It > > would be a nice reminder for people who didn't read the > > how-to-contribute section of the README :) > > > > Cheers, > > Max > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Martin Liesenberg > > <martin.liesenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > GitHub just introduced a way to supply PR templates. [1] > > > > > > To support the changes discussed here, we could add a simple template > > with > > > check boxes like: > > > [ ] did you add tests > > > [ ] did you check against the coding guidelines > > > [ ] is there a jira supporting the PR > > > > > > Let me know what you think. The language/tone probably needs a bit of > > > refinement. > > > > > > best regards > > > martin > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates > > > > > > Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> schrieb am Do., 15. Okt. 2015 um > > > 11:58 Uhr: > > > > > >> Thanks for leading the effort Fabian! > > >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Very nice work, Fabian. I think we'll have to send around a reminder > > >> > from time to time and, perhaps, evaluate the new guidelines after > some > > >> > period of time. It's great to have these documents now as a > reference. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > Great, thanks Fabian! > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Henry Saputra < > > henry.sapu...@gmail.com > > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> Thanks again for leading this effort, Fabian > > >> > >> > > >> > >> - Henry > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Hi everybody, > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > I merged our new contribution guidelines a few minutes ago. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > I'd like to emphasize that these rules do not have any effect, > if > > >> > nobody > > >> > >> > follows them. > > >> > >> > So please follow our contribution rules and make others aware > of > > >> them > > >> > as > > >> > >> > well. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Specifically > > >> > >> > - pay attention that all PRs are backed by a JIRA and ask to > > create > > >> a > > >> > >> JIRA > > >> > >> > if that is not the case > > >> > >> > - early discuss whether a feature request is valid (before code > > is > > >> > >> > contributed) to avoid frustrating late rejections of PRs. > > >> > >> > - request, provide, and discuss design docs for sensible > > >> > contributions to > > >> > >> > avoid major redesigns / rejections of PRs. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Thank you, > > >> > >> > Fabian > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 2015-10-07 10:16 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com > > >> > >> <javascript:;> > > >> > >> > >: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Thanks for the feedback everybody. > > >> > >> > > I updated the PR and would like to merge it later today if > > there > > >> > are no > > >> > >> > > more comments. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Cheers, Fabian > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > 2015-10-05 14:09 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>: > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> Hi, > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> I opened a PR with the discussed changes [1]. > > >> > >> > >> Please review, give feedback, and suggest changes. > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> Cheers, Fabian > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/11 > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> 2015-09-28 18:02 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>: > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >>> @Chiwan, sure. Will do that. Thanks for pointing it out :-) > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >>> 2015-09-28 18:00 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park < > > chiwanp...@apache.org > > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>: > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> @Fabian, Could you cover FLINK-2712 in your pull request? > I > > >> think > > >> > >> that > > >> > >> > >>>> it would be better than split pull request. > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> Regards, > > >> > >> > >>>> Chiwan Park > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Fabian Hueske < > > >> fhue...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > Thanks everybody for the discussion. > > >> > >> > >>>> > I'll prepare a pull request to update the "How to > > contribute" > > >> > and > > >> > >> > >>>> "Coding > > >> > >> > >>>> > Guidelines". > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > Thanks, > > >> > >> > >>>> > Fabian > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > 2015-09-26 9:06 GMT+02:00 Maximilian Michels < > > m...@apache.org > > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>: > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> >> Hi Fabian, > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> This is a very important topic. Thanks for starting the > > >> > >> discussion. > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> 1) JIRA discussion > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> Absolutely. No new feature should be introduced > without a > > >> > >> > discussion. > > >> > >> > >>>> >> Frankly, I see the problem that sometimes discussions > > only > > >> > come > > >> > >> up > > >> > >> > >>>> >> when the pull request has been opened. However, this > can > > be > > >> > >> > overcome > > >> > >> > >>>> >> by the design document. > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> 2) Design document > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> +1 for the document. It increases transparency but also > > >> helps > > >> > the > > >> > >> > >>>> >> contributor to think his idea through before starting > to > > >> code. > > >> > >> The > > >> > >> > >>>> >> document could also be written directly in JIRA. That > > way, > > >> it > > >> > is > > >> > >> > more > > >> > >> > >>>> >> accessible. JIRA offers mark up; even images can be > > attached > > >> > and > > >> > >> > >>>> >> displayed in the JIRA description. > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> I'd like to propose another section "Limitations" for > the > > >> > design > > >> > >> > >>>> >> document. Breaking API changes should also be listed > on a > > >> > special > > >> > >> > >>>> Wiki > > >> > >> > >>>> >> page. > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> 3) Coding style > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> In addition to updating the document, do we want to > > enforce > > >> > >> coding > > >> > >> > >>>> >> styles also by adding new Maven Checkstyle rules? IMHO > > >> strict > > >> > >> rules > > >> > >> > >>>> >> could cause more annoyances than they actually > > contribute to > > >> > the > > >> > >> > >>>> >> readability of the code. Perhaps this should be > discussed > > >> in a > > >> > >> > >>>> >> separate thread. > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> +1 for collecting common problems and design patterns > to > > >> > include > > >> > >> > them > > >> > >> > >>>> >> in the document. I was thinking, that we should also > > cover > > >> > some > > >> > >> of > > >> > >> > >>>> the > > >> > >> > >>>> >> features of tools and dependencies we heavily use, e.g. > > >> > Travis, > > >> > >> > >>>> >> Mockito, Guava, Log4j, FlinkMiniCluster, Unit testing > vs > > IT > > >> > >> cases, > > >> > >> > >>>> >> etc. > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> 4 ) Restructuring the how to contribute guide > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> Good idea to have a meta document that explains how > > >> > contributing > > >> > >> > >>>> works > > >> > >> > >>>> >> in general, and another document for technical things. > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> Cheers, > > >> > >> > >>>> >> Max > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Fabian Hueske < > > >> > >> fhue...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > <javascript:;>> > > >> > >> > >>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Thanks everybody for feedback and comments. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Regarding 1) and 2): > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> I like the idea of keeping the discussion of new > > features > > >> and > > >> > >> > >>>> >> improvements > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> in JIRA as Kostas proposed. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Our coding guidelines [1] already request a JIRA issue > > for > > >> > each > > >> > >> > pull > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> request. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> How about we highlight this requirement more > prominently > > >> and > > >> > >> > follow > > >> > >> > >>>> this > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> rule more strict from now on. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> JIRA issues for new features and improvements should > > >> clearly > > >> > >> > >>>> specify the > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> scope and requirements for the new feature / > > improvement. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> The level of detail is up to the reporter of the > issue, > > but > > >> > the > > >> > >> > >>>> community > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> can request more detail or change the scope and > > >> requirements > > >> > by > > >> > >> > >>>> >> discussion. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> When a JIRA issue for a new feature or improvement is > > >> opened, > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > >>>> >> community > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> can start a discussion whether the feature is > desirable > > for > > >> > >> Flink > > >> > >> > >>>> or not. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Any contributor (including the reporter) can also > > attach a > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> "design-doc-requested" label to the issue. A design > > >> document > > >> > can > > >> > >> > be > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> proposed by anybody, including the reporter or > assignee > > of > > >> > the > > >> > >> > JIRA > > >> > >> > >>>> >> issue. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> However, the issue cannot be resolved and a > > corresponding > > >> PR > > >> > not > > >> > >> > be > > >> > >> > >>>> >> merged > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> before a design document has been accepted by lazy > > >> consensus. > > >> > >> > >>>> Hence, an > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> assignee should propose a design doc before starting > to > > >> code > > >> > to > > >> > >> > >>>> avoid > > >> > >> > >>>> >> major > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> redesigns of the implementation. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> This way it is up to the community when to start a > > >> discussion > > >> > >> > about > > >> > >> > >>>> >> whether > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> a feature request is accepted or to request a design > > >> > document. > > >> > >> We > > >> > >> > >>>> can > > >> > >> > >>>> >> make > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> design documents mandatory for changes that touch the > > >> public > > >> > >> API. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Regarding 3): > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> I agree with Vasia, that we should collect suggestions > > for > > >> > >> common > > >> > >> > >>>> >> patterns > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> and also continuously update the coding guidelines. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> @Henry, I had best practices (exception handling, > tests, > > >> > etc.) > > >> > >> in > > >> > >> > >>>> mind. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Syntactic code style is important as well, but we > should > > >> > have a > > >> > >> > >>>> separate > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> discussion about that, IMO. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Proposal for a design document template: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> - Overview of general approach > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> - API changes (changed interfaces, new / deprecated > > >> > >> configuration > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> parameters, changed behavior) > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> - Main components and classes to touch > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Cheers, > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> Fabian > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> [1] http://flink.apache.org/coding-guidelines.html > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> <http://flink.apache.org/coding-guidelines.html> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> 2015-09-24 10:52 GMT+02:00 Chiwan Park < > > >> > chiwanp...@apache.org > > >> > >> > <javascript:;>>: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Thanks Fabian for starting the discussion. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> +1 for overall approach. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> About (1), expressing that consensus must be required > > for > > >> > new > > >> > >> > >>>> feature > > >> > >> > >>>> >> in > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> “How to contribute” page is very nice. Some pull > > requests > > >> > were > > >> > >> > sent > > >> > >> > >>>> >> without > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> consensus. The contributors had to rewrote their pull > > >> > requests. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Agree with (2), (3) and (4). > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Regards, > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Chiwan Park > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Henry Saputra < > > >> > >> > >>>> henry.sapu...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> Thanks again, Fabian for starting the discussions. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> For (1) and (2) I think it is good idea and will > help > > >> > people > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> understand and follow the author thought process. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> Following up with Stephan's reply, some new features > > >> > solutions > > >> > >> > >>>> could > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> be explained thoroughly in the PR descriptions but > > some > > >> > >> requires > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> additional reviews of the proposed design. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> I like the idea of using tag in JIRA whether new > > features > > >> > >> should > > >> > >> > >>>> or > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> should not being accompanied by design document. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> Agree with (3) and (4). > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> As for (3) are you thinking about more of style of > > code > > >> > syntax > > >> > >> > via > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> checkstyle updates, or best practices in term of no > > >> mutable > > >> > >> > state > > >> > >> > >>>> if > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> possible, throw precise Exception if possible for > > >> > interfaces, > > >> > >> > >>>> etc. ? > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> - Henry > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Stephan Ewen < > > >> > >> se...@apache.org > > >> > >> > <javascript:;>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> wrote: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Fabian for driving this! > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> I agree with your points. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> Concerning Vasia's comment to not raise the bar too > > >> high: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> That is true, the requirements should be > reasonable. > > We > > >> > can > > >> > >> > >>>> >> definitely > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> tag > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> issues as "simple" which means they do not require > a > > >> > design > > >> > >> > >>>> >> document. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> That > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> should be more for new features and needs not be > very > > >> > >> detailed. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> We could also make the inverse, meaning we > explicitly > > >> tag > > >> > >> > certain > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> issues as > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> "requires design document". > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> Greetings, > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> Stephan > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri < > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> vasilikikala...@gmail.com <javascript:;> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Hi, > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> I agree with you Fabian. Clarifying these issues > in > > the > > >> > "How > > >> > >> > to > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Contribute" > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> guide will save lots of time both to reviewers and > > >> > >> > contributors. > > >> > >> > >>>> >> It is > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> a > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> really disappointing situation when someone spends > > time > > >> > >> > >>>> >> implementing > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> something and their PR ends up being rejected > > because > > >> > either > > >> > >> > the > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> feature > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> was not needed or the implementation details were > > never > > >> > >> agreed > > >> > >> > >>>> on. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> That said, I think we should also make sure that > we > > >> don't > > >> > >> > raise > > >> > >> > >>>> the > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> bar too > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> high for simple contributions. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Regarding (1) and (2), I think we should clarify > > what > > >> > kind > > >> > >> of > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> additions/changes require this process to be > > followed. > > >> > e.g. > > >> > >> do > > >> > >> > >>>> we > > >> > >> > >>>> >> need > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> to > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> discuss additions for which JIRAs already exist? > > Ideas > > >> > >> > described > > >> > >> > >>>> >> in the > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> roadmaps? Adding a new algorithm to > Gelly/Flink-ML? > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Regarding (3), maybe we can all suggest some > > >> > >> examples/patterns > > >> > >> > >>>> that > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> we've > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> seen when reviewing PRs and then choose the most > > common > > >> > (or > > >> > >> > >>>> all). > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> (4) sounds good to me. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> Vasia. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> On 23 September 2015 at 15:08, Kostas Tzoumas < > > >> > >> > >>>> ktzou...@apache.org <javascript:;> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> Big +1. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> For (1), a discussion in JIRA would also be an > > option > > >> > IMO > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> For (2), let us come up with few examples on what > > >> > >> > constitutes a > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> feature > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> that needs a design doc, and what should be in > the > > doc > > >> > (IMO > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> architecture/general approach, components > touched, > > >> > >> interfaces > > >> > >> > >>>> >> changed) > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Fabian Hueske < > > >> > >> > >>>> fhue...@gmail.com <javascript:;> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everybody, > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess we all have noticed that the Flink > > community > > >> is > > >> > >> > >>>> quickly > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> growing > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> and > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> more and more contributions are coming in. > > Recently, > > >> a > > >> > few > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> contributions > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> proposed new features without being discussed on > > the > > >> > >> mailing > > >> > >> > >>>> >> list. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> Some > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> of > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> these contributions were not accepted in the > end. > > In > > >> > other > > >> > >> > >>>> cases, > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> pull > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> requests had to be heavily reworked because the > > >> > approach > > >> > >> > taken > > >> > >> > >>>> >> was > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> not > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> the > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> best one. These are situations which should be > > >> avoided > > >> > >> > because > > >> > >> > >>>> >> both > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> the > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> contributor as well as the person who reviewed > the > > >> > >> > >>>> contribution > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> invested > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> a > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> lot of time for nothing. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I had a look at our “How to contribute” and > > “Coding > > >> > >> > guideline” > > >> > >> > >>>> >> pages > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> and > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> think, we can improve them. I see basically two > > >> issues: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. The documents do not explain how to propose > and > > >> > discuss > > >> > >> > new > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> features > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> and improvements. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. The documents are quite technical and the > > >> structure > > >> > >> could > > >> > >> > >>>> be > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> improved, > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> IMO. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to improve these pages and propose > > the > > >> > >> > following > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> additions: > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Request contributors and committers to start > > >> > >> discussions > > >> > >> > on > > >> > >> > >>>> >> the > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> mailing list for new features. This discussion > > should > > >> > help > > >> > >> > to > > >> > >> > >>>> >> figure > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> out > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> whether such a new feature is a good fit for > Flink > > >> and > > >> > >> give > > >> > >> > >>>> first > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> pointers > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> for a design to implement it. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Require contributors and committers to write > > >> design > > >> > >> > >>>> >> documents for > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> all > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> new features and major improvements. These > > documents > > >> > >> should > > >> > >> > be > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> attached > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> to > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> a JIRA issue and follow a template which needs > to > > be > > >> > >> > defined. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Extend the “Coding Style Guides” and add > > patterns > > >> > that > > >> > >> > are > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> commonly > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> remarked in pull requests. > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Restructure the current pages into three > > pages: a > > >> > >> general > > >> > >> > >>>> >> guide > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> for > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> contributions and two guides for how to > > contribute to > > >> > code > > >> > >> > and > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> website > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> with > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> all technical issues (repository, IDE setup, > build > > >> > system, > > >> > >> > >>>> etc.) > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Looking forward for your comments, > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Fabian > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> >> > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >
