Concerning moving text to the contributors guide: I can only say it again: I believe the contribution guide is almost dead text. Very few people read it. Before the current template was introduced, new contributors rarely gave the pull request a name with Jira number. That is a good indicator about how many read this guide. Putting the test in the template is a way that every one reads it.
I am also wondering what the concern is. A new contributor should clearly read through a bit of text, to learn what we look for in contributions. A recurring contributor will not have to read it again, simply remove the text from the pull request message and go on. Where is the disadvantage? On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Nico Kruber <n...@data-artisans.com> wrote: > I like the new template but also agree with the text being too long and > would > move the intro to the contributors guide with a link in the PR template. > > Regarding the questions to fill out - I'd like the headings to be short and > have the affected components last so that documentation is not lost > (although > being more important than this checklist), e.g.: > > * Purpose of the change > * Brief change log > * Verifying the change > * Documentation > * Affected components > > The verification options in the original template look a bit too large but > it > stresses what tests should be added, especially for bigger changes. Can't > think of a way to make it shorter though. > > > Nico > > On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 11:20:41 CEST Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > I fully agree with Fabian. > > > > Multiple-choice questions provide little value to the reviewer, since the > > validity has to be verified in any case. While text answers have to be > > validated as well, > > they give some hint to the reviewer as to how it can be verified and > > which steps the > > contributor did to do so. > > > > I also agree that it is too long; IMO this is really intimidating to new > > contributors to be greeted with this. > > > > Ideally we only link to the contributors guide and ask 3 questions: > > > > * What is the problem? > > * How was it fixed? > > * How can the fix be verified? > > > > On 18.07.2017 10:47, Fabian Hueske wrote: > > > I like the sections about purpose, change log, and verification of the > > > changes. > > > > > > However, I think the proposed template is too much text. This is > probably > > > the reason why the first attempt to establish a PR template failed. > > > I would move most of the introduction and explanations incl. examples > to > > > the "Contribution Guidelines" and only pass a link. > > > IMO, the template should be rather shorter than the current one and > only > > > have the link, the sections to fill out, and checkboxes. > > > > > > I'm also not sure how much the detailed questions will help. > > > For example even if the question about changed dependencies is answered > > > with "no", the reviewer still has to check that. > > > > > > I think the questions of the current template work differently. > > > A question "Does the PR include tests?" suggests to the contributor > that > > > those should be included. Same for documentation. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Fabian > > > > > > 2017-07-18 10:05 GMT+02:00 Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org>: > > >> +1, I like this a lot. > > >> With the previous template, it doesn’t really resonate with what we > > >> should > > >> care about, and therefore most of the time I think contributors just > > >> delete > > >> that template and write down something on their own. > > >> > > >> I would also like to add: “Savepoint / checkpoint binary formats” to > the > > >> potential affect scope check list. > > >> I think changes to those deserves an independent yes / no check of its > > >> own. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Gordon > > >> > > >> On 18 July 2017 at 3:49:42 PM, Ufuk Celebi (u...@apache.org) wrote: > > >> > > >> 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)** > >
