I really like this and vote to change our current template. The simple yes/no/... options are a really good idea. I would add to your email that the questions will equally help reviewers to remember to look at these things, which is just as important.
When we merge this, we should make sure to strictly follow the guide. Ideally, in the long term we can even automate some of the yes/no/... questions via a bot... but let's not get ahead of ourselves here ;-) On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all! > > I have reflected a bit on the pull requests and on some of the recent > changes to Flink and some of the introduced bugs / regressions that we have > fixed. > > One thing that I think would have helped is to have more explicit > information about what the pull request does and how the contributor would > suggest to verify it. I have seen this when contributing to some other > project and really liked the approach. > > It requires that a contributor takes a minute to reflect on what was > touched, and what would be ways to verify that the changes work properly. > Besides being a help to the reviewer, it also makes contributors aware of > what is important during the review process. > > > I suggest a new pull request template, as attached below, with a preview > here: > https://github.com/StephanEwen/incubator-flink/blob/pr_template/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md > > Don't be scared, it looks long, but a big part is the introductory text > (only relevant for new contributors) and the examples contents for the > description. > > Filling this out for code that is in shape should be a quick thing: Remove > the into and checklist, write a few sentences on what the PR does (one > should do that anyways) and then pick some yes/no in the classification > section. > > Curious to hear what you think! > > Best, > Stephan > > > ============================ > > Full suggested pull request template: > > > > *Thank you very much for contributing to Apache Flink - we are happy that > you want to help us improve Flink. To help the community review you > contribution in the best possible way, please go through the checklist > below, which will get the contribution into a shape in which it can be best > reviewed.* > > *Please understand that we do not do this to make contributions to Flink a > hassle. In order to uphold a high standard of quality for code > contributions, while at the same time managing a large number of > contributions, we need contributors to prepare the contributions well, and > give reviewers enough contextual information for the review. Please also > understand that contributions that do not follow this guide will take > longer to review and thus typically be picked up with lower priority by the > community.* > > ## Contribution Checklist > > - Make sure that the pull request corresponds to a [JIRA issue]( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/FLINK/issues). Exceptions are made > for typos in JavaDoc or documentation files, which need no JIRA issue. > > - Name the pull request in the form "[FLINK-1234] [component] Title of > the pull request", where *FLINK-1234* should be replaced by the actual > issue number. Skip *component* if you are unsure about which is the best > component. > Typo fixes that have no associated JIRA issue should be named following > this pattern: `[hotfix] [docs] Fix typo in event time introduction` or > `[hotfix] [javadocs] Expand JavaDoc for PuncuatedWatermarkGenerator`. > > - Fill out the template below to describe the changes contributed by the > pull request. That will give reviewers the context they need to do the > review. > > - Make sure that the change passes the automated tests, i.e., `mvn clean > verify` > > - Each pull request should address only one issue, not mix up code from > multiple issues. > > - Each commit in the pull request has a meaningful commit message > (including the JIRA id) > > - Once all items of the checklist are addressed, remove the above text > and this checklist, leaving only the filled out template below. > > > **(The sections below can be removed for hotfixes of typos)** > > ## What is the purpose of the change > > *(For example: This pull request makes task deployment go through the blob > server, rather than through RPC. That way we avoid re-transferring them on > each deployment (during recovery).)* > > > ## Brief change log > > *(for example:)* > - *The TaskInfo is stored in the blob store on job creation time as a > persistent artifact* > - *Deployments RPC transmits only the blob storage reference* > - *TaskManagers retrieve the TaskInfo from the blob cache* > > > ## Verifying this change > > *(Please pick either of the following options)* > > This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage. > > *(or)* > > This change is already covered by existing tests, such as *(please describe > tests)*. > > *(or)* > > This change added tests and can be verified as follows: > > *(example:)* > - *Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads > (100MB)* > - *Extended integration test for recovery after master (JobManager) > failure* > - *Added test that validates that TaskInfo is transferred only once > across recoveries* > - *Manually verified the change by running a 4 node cluser with 2 > JobManagers and 4 TaskManagers, a stateful streaming program, and killing > one JobManager and to TaskManagers during the execution, verifying that > recovery happens correctly.* > > ## Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts: > > - Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): **(yes / no)** > - The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with > `@Public(Evolving)`: **(yes / no)** > - The serializers: **(yes / no / don't know)** > - The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): **(yes / no > / don't know)** > - Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its > components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: **(yes / no / don't > know)**: > > ## Documentation > > - Does this pull request introduce a new feature? **(yes / no)** > - If yes, how is the feature documented? **(not applicable / docs / > JavaDocs / not documented)**
