[DISCUSS] JIRA issue required even for minor/hotfix pull requests?

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

Hi all,

Guozhang raised this topic in the "[DISCUSS] Using GitHub Pull Requests for
contributions and code review" thread and suggested starting a new thread
for it.

In the Spark project, they say:

"If the change is new, then it usually needs a new JIRA. However, trivial
changes, where "what should change" is virtually the same as "how it should
change" do not require a JIRA.
Example: "Fix typos in Foo scaladoc"."

In such cases, the commit message would be prefixed with [MINOR] or
[HOTFIX] instead of [KAFKA-xxx].

I can see the pros and cons for each approach.

Always requiring a JIRA ticket makes it more consistent and makes it
possible to use JIRA as the place to prioritise what needs attention
(although this is imperfect as code review will take place in the pull
request and it's likely that JIRA won't always be fully in sync for
in-progress items).

Skipping JIRA tickets for minor/hotfix pull requests (where the JIRA ticket
just duplicates the information in the pull request) eliminates redundant
work and reduces the barrier to contribution (it is likely that people will
occasionally submit PRs without a JIRA even when the change is too big for
that though).

Guozhang suggested in the original thread:

"Personally I think it is better to not enforcing a JIRA ticket for minor /
hotfix commits, for example, we can format the title with [MINOR] [HOTFIX]
etc as in Spark"

What do others think?

Best,
Ismael

Re: [DISCUSS] JIRA issue required even for minor/hotfix pull requests?

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> I went with this for now:
>

Actually, I changed it to the following to match our existing commit prefix
convention (instead of Spark's):


> The PR title should usually be of the form KAFKA-xxxx; Title, where
> KAFKA-xxxx is the relevant JIRA id and Title may be the JIRA's title or a
> more specific title describing the PR itself. For trivial cases where a
> JIRA is not required (see JIRA section for more details) MINOR; or HOTFIX; can
> be used as the PR title prefix.
>

The script already works this way, I had just forgotten to update the
documentation to match.

Ismael

Re: [DISCUSS] JIRA issue required even for minor/hotfix pull requests?

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> changing the statement in wiki that "you could create a PR with
> [KAFKA-XXXX] or [MINOR], [HOTFIX], etc"
>

I went with this for now:

The PR title should usually be of the form [KAFKA-xxxx] Title, where
> KAFKA-xxxx is the relevant JIRA id and Title may be the JIRA's title or a
> more specific title describing the PR itself. For trivial cases where a
> JIRA is not required (see JIRA section for more details) [MINOR] or 
> [HOTFIX] can be used as the PR title prefix.


We can always change it if it doesn't work well.

Ismael

Re: [DISCUSS] JIRA issue required even for minor/hotfix pull requests?

[Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>]

Joe,

I think the issue that Ismael want to raise discussion for is that today,
we are "unofficially" sticking with JIRA tickets for all of our commits
(i.e. it is not enforced in bylaws but we are doing it anyways), for
example, following today's RB-based review process people are creating
JIRAs for typo fixes as well:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1957?jql=project%20%3D%20KAFKA%20AND%20text%20~%20%22typo%22

Now we are trying to migrate from RB to PR, in the proposed wiki (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes)
it is suggested people creating their PR with [KAFKA-XXX] as title prefix,
so effectively suggesting we will enforce it, while on the same page we are
also following Spark's statement that "if it is minor you do not need to
create a JIRA", so I was discussing with Ismael that we should clear this
confusion and clarify which approach we should really pursue, whether
changing the statement in wiki that "you could create a PR with
[KAFKA-XXXX] or [MINOR], [HOTFIX], etc" or sticking that "you should always
create a JIRA and make the PR title accordingly".

Guozhang


On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:
>
> > If the patch lives on a pull request and is a simple hotfix a committer
> > could +1 and commit it. I don't see anything in the
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws preventing this
> > already now.
>
>
> Good.
>
>
> > I guess I am still struggling between what is not setup that
> > you think we need to get setup or changes that you are looking to make
> > differently? What are we trying to discuss and decide up in regards to
> > this?
> >
>
> Nothing needs to be set-up. It's just a matter of agreeing the process so
> that the new (in-progress) page for contributing code changes can be
> accurate (
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes
> ).
> If you look at http://kafka.apache.org/contributing.html, it says that a
> JIRA needs to be created, for example. Also, in the original pull request
> thread, Guozhang said the same. If you think differently, it's even more
> reason to clarify our position. :)
>
> Best,
> Ismael
>



-- 
-- Guozhang

Re: [DISCUSS] JIRA issue required even for minor/hotfix pull requests?

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:

> If the patch lives on a pull request and is a simple hotfix a committer
> could +1 and commit it. I don't see anything in the
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws preventing this
> already now.


Good.


> I guess I am still struggling between what is not setup that
> you think we need to get setup or changes that you are looking to make
> differently? What are we trying to discuss and decide up in regards to
> this?
>

Nothing needs to be set-up. It's just a matter of agreeing the process so
that the new (in-progress) page for contributing code changes can be
accurate (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes).
If you look at http://kafka.apache.org/contributing.html, it says that a
JIRA needs to be created, for example. Also, in the original pull request
thread, Guozhang said the same. If you think differently, it's even more
reason to clarify our position. :)

Best,
Ismael

Re: [DISCUSS] JIRA issue required even for minor/hotfix pull requests?

[Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly>]

Ismael,

If the patch lives on a pull request and is a simple hotfix a committer
could +1 and commit it. I don't see anything in the
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws preventing this
already now. I guess I am still struggling between what is not setup that
you think we need to get setup or changes that you are looking to make
differently? What are we trying to discuss and decide up in regards to this?

~ Joe Stein

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
>
> Yes, I am aware of the emails and automatic JIRA updates.
>
> The question is whether a contributor who wants to make a simple change (eg
> fix a typo, improve a scaladoc, make a small code improvement) should have
> to create a JIRA for it and then submit the PR or if they can just skip the
> JIRA step. I will update the following wiki page accordingly once we decide
> one way or another:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes
>
> Best,
> Ismael
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, meant to say 'an email to dev list' instead of 'a JIRA' below. The
> > hooks in JIRA comments I have seen working recently.
> >
> > ~ Joe Stein
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:
> >
> > > Ismael,
> > >
> > > If you create a pull request on github today then a JIRA is created so
> > > folks can see and respond and such. The JIRA hooks also provide in
> > comment
> > > updates too.
> > >
> > > What issue are you having or looking to-do?
> > >
> > > ~ Joe Stein
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Guozhang raised this topic in the "[DISCUSS] Using GitHub Pull
> Requests
> > >> for
> > >> contributions and code review" thread and suggested starting a new
> > thread
> > >> for it.
> > >>
> > >> In the Spark project, they say:
> > >>
> > >> "If the change is new, then it usually needs a new JIRA. However,
> > trivial
> > >> changes, where "what should change" is virtually the same as "how it
> > >> should
> > >> change" do not require a JIRA.
> > >> Example: "Fix typos in Foo scaladoc"."
> > >>
> > >> In such cases, the commit message would be prefixed with [MINOR] or
> > >> [HOTFIX] instead of [KAFKA-xxx].
> > >>
> > >> I can see the pros and cons for each approach.
> > >>
> > >> Always requiring a JIRA ticket makes it more consistent and makes it
> > >> possible to use JIRA as the place to prioritise what needs attention
> > >> (although this is imperfect as code review will take place in the pull
> > >> request and it's likely that JIRA won't always be fully in sync for
> > >> in-progress items).
> > >>
> > >> Skipping JIRA tickets for minor/hotfix pull requests (where the JIRA
> > >> ticket
> > >> just duplicates the information in the pull request) eliminates
> > redundant
> > >> work and reduces the barrier to contribution (it is likely that people
> > >> will
> > >> occasionally submit PRs without a JIRA even when the change is too big
> > for
> > >> that though).
> > >>
> > >> Guozhang suggested in the original thread:
> > >>
> > >> "Personally I think it is better to not enforcing a JIRA ticket for
> > minor
> > >> /
> > >> hotfix commits, for example, we can format the title with [MINOR]
> > [HOTFIX]
> > >> etc as in Spark"
> > >>
> > >> What do others think?
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Ismael
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] JIRA issue required even for minor/hotfix pull requests?

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

Hi Joe,

Yes, I am aware of the emails and automatic JIRA updates.

The question is whether a contributor who wants to make a simple change (eg
fix a typo, improve a scaladoc, make a small code improvement) should have
to create a JIRA for it and then submit the PR or if they can just skip the
JIRA step. I will update the following wiki page accordingly once we decide
one way or another:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes

Best,
Ismael

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:

> Sorry, meant to say 'an email to dev list' instead of 'a JIRA' below. The
> hooks in JIRA comments I have seen working recently.
>
> ~ Joe Stein
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:
>
> > Ismael,
> >
> > If you create a pull request on github today then a JIRA is created so
> > folks can see and respond and such. The JIRA hooks also provide in
> comment
> > updates too.
> >
> > What issue are you having or looking to-do?
> >
> > ~ Joe Stein
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Guozhang raised this topic in the "[DISCUSS] Using GitHub Pull Requests
> >> for
> >> contributions and code review" thread and suggested starting a new
> thread
> >> for it.
> >>
> >> In the Spark project, they say:
> >>
> >> "If the change is new, then it usually needs a new JIRA. However,
> trivial
> >> changes, where "what should change" is virtually the same as "how it
> >> should
> >> change" do not require a JIRA.
> >> Example: "Fix typos in Foo scaladoc"."
> >>
> >> In such cases, the commit message would be prefixed with [MINOR] or
> >> [HOTFIX] instead of [KAFKA-xxx].
> >>
> >> I can see the pros and cons for each approach.
> >>
> >> Always requiring a JIRA ticket makes it more consistent and makes it
> >> possible to use JIRA as the place to prioritise what needs attention
> >> (although this is imperfect as code review will take place in the pull
> >> request and it's likely that JIRA won't always be fully in sync for
> >> in-progress items).
> >>
> >> Skipping JIRA tickets for minor/hotfix pull requests (where the JIRA
> >> ticket
> >> just duplicates the information in the pull request) eliminates
> redundant
> >> work and reduces the barrier to contribution (it is likely that people
> >> will
> >> occasionally submit PRs without a JIRA even when the change is too big
> for
> >> that though).
> >>
> >> Guozhang suggested in the original thread:
> >>
> >> "Personally I think it is better to not enforcing a JIRA ticket for
> minor
> >> /
> >> hotfix commits, for example, we can format the title with [MINOR]
> [HOTFIX]
> >> etc as in Spark"
> >>
> >> What do others think?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Ismael
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] JIRA issue required even for minor/hotfix pull requests?

[Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly>]

Sorry, meant to say 'an email to dev list' instead of 'a JIRA' below. The
hooks in JIRA comments I have seen working recently.

~ Joe Stein

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly> wrote:

> Ismael,
>
> If you create a pull request on github today then a JIRA is created so
> folks can see and respond and such. The JIRA hooks also provide in comment
> updates too.
>
> What issue are you having or looking to-do?
>
> ~ Joe Stein
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Guozhang raised this topic in the "[DISCUSS] Using GitHub Pull Requests
>> for
>> contributions and code review" thread and suggested starting a new thread
>> for it.
>>
>> In the Spark project, they say:
>>
>> "If the change is new, then it usually needs a new JIRA. However, trivial
>> changes, where "what should change" is virtually the same as "how it
>> should
>> change" do not require a JIRA.
>> Example: "Fix typos in Foo scaladoc"."
>>
>> In such cases, the commit message would be prefixed with [MINOR] or
>> [HOTFIX] instead of [KAFKA-xxx].
>>
>> I can see the pros and cons for each approach.
>>
>> Always requiring a JIRA ticket makes it more consistent and makes it
>> possible to use JIRA as the place to prioritise what needs attention
>> (although this is imperfect as code review will take place in the pull
>> request and it's likely that JIRA won't always be fully in sync for
>> in-progress items).
>>
>> Skipping JIRA tickets for minor/hotfix pull requests (where the JIRA
>> ticket
>> just duplicates the information in the pull request) eliminates redundant
>> work and reduces the barrier to contribution (it is likely that people
>> will
>> occasionally submit PRs without a JIRA even when the change is too big for
>> that though).
>>
>> Guozhang suggested in the original thread:
>>
>> "Personally I think it is better to not enforcing a JIRA ticket for minor
>> /
>> hotfix commits, for example, we can format the title with [MINOR] [HOTFIX]
>> etc as in Spark"
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>> Best,
>> Ismael
>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] JIRA issue required even for minor/hotfix pull requests?

[Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly>]

Ismael,

If you create a pull request on github today then a JIRA is created so
folks can see and respond and such. The JIRA hooks also provide in comment
updates too.

What issue are you having or looking to-do?

~ Joe Stein

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Guozhang raised this topic in the "[DISCUSS] Using GitHub Pull Requests for
> contributions and code review" thread and suggested starting a new thread
> for it.
>
> In the Spark project, they say:
>
> "If the change is new, then it usually needs a new JIRA. However, trivial
> changes, where "what should change" is virtually the same as "how it should
> change" do not require a JIRA.
> Example: "Fix typos in Foo scaladoc"."
>
> In such cases, the commit message would be prefixed with [MINOR] or
> [HOTFIX] instead of [KAFKA-xxx].
>
> I can see the pros and cons for each approach.
>
> Always requiring a JIRA ticket makes it more consistent and makes it
> possible to use JIRA as the place to prioritise what needs attention
> (although this is imperfect as code review will take place in the pull
> request and it's likely that JIRA won't always be fully in sync for
> in-progress items).
>
> Skipping JIRA tickets for minor/hotfix pull requests (where the JIRA ticket
> just duplicates the information in the pull request) eliminates redundant
> work and reduces the barrier to contribution (it is likely that people will
> occasionally submit PRs without a JIRA even when the change is too big for
> that though).
>
> Guozhang suggested in the original thread:
>
> "Personally I think it is better to not enforcing a JIRA ticket for minor /
> hotfix commits, for example, we can format the title with [MINOR] [HOTFIX]
> etc as in Spark"
>
> What do others think?
>
> Best,
> Ismael
>