How do you intend to keep the label up-to-date with whatever
modifications are made in JIRA?
On 07.03.2019 13:40, Robert Metzger wrote:
I will automatically assign the Jira component as a label to the PR, yes.
You won't have to manually update the label on the PR, this will be done
automatically.
So JIRA will stay the ground truth for setting the component correctly.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:11 AM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote:
Component labels seem a bit redundant. Every JIRA with an open PR
already has a "pull-request-available" tag.
So this information already exists.
I assume you'll base the labels on the component tags at the time the PR
is opened, but this also implies that they may be set incorrectly (or
not at all) by the contributor. In this case we now have to update the
component both in JIRA and on GitHub, and I'm most certainly not looking
forward to that.
On 06.03.2019 13:51, Robert Metzger wrote:
This is the picture:
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/89049/53882383-7fda9380-4016-11e9-877d-10cdc00bdfbd.png
Speaking about feature requests, priorities and time-spend: My plan was
to
now work on introducing a new label category for the components.
This should get us a lot better overview over the per-component
status/health of pull requests.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 12:58 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>
wrote:
The image didn't go through.
I would keep it as is; imo there are significantly more important things
that I'd like Robert to spend time on. (literally everything in the
Feature requests section)
If we want to better distinguish new PRs I would suggest to either a)
introduce a dedicated "New" label or b) not attach any label by default,
and only attach the description label if someone has
approved/disapproved it.
On 06.03.2019 12:37, Robert Metzger wrote:
Hey Kurt,
thanks a lot for this idea.
My reasoning behind using just one color is the following: I wanted to
use one color per category of labels.
So when we are introducing labels for components, that it'll look like
this:
image.png
But we could of course also go with color families per category. So
"review" is green colors, "component" is red colors and so on.
If nobody objects (or agrees) with me, I'll change the colors soon.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:51 AM Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com
<mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Dev,
I've been using the flinkbot and the label for a couple days, it
worked
really well! I have a minor suggestion, can we
use different colors for different labels? We don't need to have
different
colors for every label, but only to distinguish whether
someone had review the PR.
For example, "review=description?" is the initial default label,
and it may
indicate that no reviewer has been try to review it.
For "review=architecture?", "review=consensus?",
"review=quality?", they
indicate that at least someone has try to review it and
approved something. It sounds like the review is in progress.
For "review=approved ✅", it indicates the review is finished.
So i think 3 colors is enough, it tell committers whether the
review has
not started yes, or in progress, or is finished.
What do you think?
Best,
Kurt
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:50 PM Robert Metzger <
rmetz...@apache.org
<mailto:rmetz...@apache.org>> wrote:
> GitHub has two methods for authentication with the APIs:
> a) using an account's oauth token
> b) using the GitHub Apps API
>
> Most of the libraries for the GH API use a), so does Flinkbot.
The problem
> with a) is that it does not allow for fine-grained access
control, and
> Infra does not want to give Flinkbot "write" access to
"apache/flink".
> That's why I need to rewrite parts of the bot to support b),
which allows
> to give access only a repo's metadata, but not the code itself.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:42 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org
<mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> > It would be good to encourage participation of non-committers
in the
> review
> > process, so +1 for allowing everyone to operate the bot.
> >
> > Github approval will show a green checkmark for committer
approval
> > (assuming accounts were linked via gitbox) - that should
provide
> sufficient
> > orientation?
> >
> > I just noticed that flinkbot seems to act as Robert when it
comes to
> label
> > management? I think that is confusing (besides earning Robert
a lot of
> > extra github notification mail thanks to participation on
every PR :)
> >
> > Overall flinkbot is very useful, thanks for all the work on
it! I heard
> > positive feedback from other contributors, I think they see
their
> > contributions are better received now.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:38 AM Robert Metzger
<rmetz...@apache.org <mailto:rmetz...@apache.org>>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I will update labels only based on committer's approvals
(for
> > everything),
> > > I think that's cleaner.
> > >
> > > We can always revisit this.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:31 PM Chesnay Schepler
<ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fore code-quality/description I agree, but consensus and
the final
> > > > approval should require a committer IMO.
> > > >
> > > > On 27.02.2019 15:08, Robert Metzger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did not put any restrictions on who can communicate with
the bot!
> > > > But since there is currently no way of overriding
somebody's approval
> > for
> > > > something, this can easily lead to such a situation.
> > > >
> > > > My thinking was that a committer still needs to manually
check who
> > > > approved a pull request, and I wanted to be open for
non-committers
> to
> > > > participate in the review process.
> > > > WIth the labels in place, this can easily send the wrong
message.
> > > >
> > > > What should we do?
> > > > A) we restrict sending commands to the bot to committers?
> > > > B) only approvals from committers matter for applying
labels?
> > > > C) we allow committers to override approvals
> > > >
> > > > I'm leaning towards B, as it encourages non-committers to
> participate.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:01 PM Chesnay Schepler
<ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Just noticed that _anyone_ can approve a PR now, see
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/7801.
> > > >>
> > > >> Not sure about the solution, but as it stands it is
rather trivial
> to
> > > >> nuke the review process of the entire project.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 13.02.2019 10:29, Robert Metzger wrote:
> > > >> > Hey all,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > the flinkbot has been active for a week now, and I hope
the
> initial
> > > >> hiccups
> > > >> > have been resolved :)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I wanted to start this as a permanent thread to discuss
problems
> and
> > > >> > improvements with the bot.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > *So please post here if you have questions, problems or
ideas how
> to
> > > >> > improve it!*
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
