You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to common-dev@hadoop.apache.org by Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> on 2019/07/22 18:05:49 UTC
[DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
that Github PR is the preferred method.
Thoughts?
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
a word of caution. according to INFRA-18748, asf infra is going to be
cutting out blind PR building. So we'll need to be sure that precommit
integration works e.g. testing PRs because there's a JIRA that a
whitelisted contributor has associated and put in patch available
status.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
>
> The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> that Github PR is the preferred method.
>
> Thoughts?
--
busbey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Xiaoqiao He <he...@apache.org>.
Thanks Wei-Chiu for starting this discussion.
+1 (non-binding) for turning code review to GitHub PR and keep other
comments/discussions on JIRA.
1. In my experience, JIRA is better at tracking and recording information.
2. It is confused that no guide (`How to contribute`) about submit PR to
JIRA or GitHub, so there are a few patches and review comments active at
both side. In my opinion it is necessary to unify them.
Thanks,
He Xiaoqiao
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:01 PM Gabor Bota <ga...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Although we will use github with PRs, I'd still prefer adding a +1 as a
> jira comment stating which PR was the last and approved one among the many.
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:22 AM Steve Loughran
> <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
> > <eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> > > track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
> > >
> > >
> > Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes,
> cross
> > referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
> >
> > Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
> >
> > I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
> > the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs:
> different
> > attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so
> the
> > old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
> > different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
> >
> > That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github
> for
> > review.
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Xiaoqiao He <he...@apache.org>.
Thanks Wei-Chiu for starting this discussion.
+1 (non-binding) for turning code review to GitHub PR and keep other
comments/discussions on JIRA.
1. In my experience, JIRA is better at tracking and recording information.
2. It is confused that no guide (`How to contribute`) about submit PR to
JIRA or GitHub, so there are a few patches and review comments active at
both side. In my opinion it is necessary to unify them.
Thanks,
He Xiaoqiao
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:01 PM Gabor Bota <ga...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Although we will use github with PRs, I'd still prefer adding a +1 as a
> jira comment stating which PR was the last and approved one among the many.
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:22 AM Steve Loughran
> <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
> > <eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> > > track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
> > >
> > >
> > Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes,
> cross
> > referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
> >
> > Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
> >
> > I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
> > the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs:
> different
> > attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so
> the
> > old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
> > different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
> >
> > That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github
> for
> > review.
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Xiaoqiao He <he...@apache.org>.
Thanks Wei-Chiu for starting this discussion.
+1 (non-binding) for turning code review to GitHub PR and keep other
comments/discussions on JIRA.
1. In my experience, JIRA is better at tracking and recording information.
2. It is confused that no guide (`How to contribute`) about submit PR to
JIRA or GitHub, so there are a few patches and review comments active at
both side. In my opinion it is necessary to unify them.
Thanks,
He Xiaoqiao
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:01 PM Gabor Bota <ga...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Although we will use github with PRs, I'd still prefer adding a +1 as a
> jira comment stating which PR was the last and approved one among the many.
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:22 AM Steve Loughran
> <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
> > <eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> > > track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
> > >
> > >
> > Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes,
> cross
> > referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
> >
> > Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
> >
> > I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
> > the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs:
> different
> > attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so
> the
> > old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
> > different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
> >
> > That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github
> for
> > review.
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Xiaoqiao He <he...@apache.org>.
Thanks Wei-Chiu for starting this discussion.
+1 (non-binding) for turning code review to GitHub PR and keep other
comments/discussions on JIRA.
1. In my experience, JIRA is better at tracking and recording information.
2. It is confused that no guide (`How to contribute`) about submit PR to
JIRA or GitHub, so there are a few patches and review comments active at
both side. In my opinion it is necessary to unify them.
Thanks,
He Xiaoqiao
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:01 PM Gabor Bota <ga...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Although we will use github with PRs, I'd still prefer adding a +1 as a
> jira comment stating which PR was the last and approved one among the many.
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:22 AM Steve Loughran
> <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
> > <eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> > > track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
> > >
> > >
> > Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes,
> cross
> > referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
> >
> > Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
> >
> > I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
> > the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs:
> different
> > attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so
> the
> > old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
> > different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
> >
> > That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github
> for
> > review.
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Gabor Bota <ga...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Although we will use github with PRs, I'd still prefer adding a +1 as a
jira comment stating which PR was the last and approved one among the many.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:22 AM Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
> <eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> > track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
> >
> >
> Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes, cross
> referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
>
> Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
>
> I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
> the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs: different
> attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so the
> old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
> different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
>
> That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github for
> review.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Gabor Bota <ga...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Although we will use github with PRs, I'd still prefer adding a +1 as a
jira comment stating which PR was the last and approved one among the many.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:22 AM Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
> <eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> > track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
> >
> >
> Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes, cross
> referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
>
> Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
>
> I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
> the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs: different
> attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so the
> old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
> different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
>
> That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github for
> review.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Gabor Bota <ga...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Although we will use github with PRs, I'd still prefer adding a +1 as a
jira comment stating which PR was the last and approved one among the many.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:22 AM Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
> <eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> > track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
> >
> >
> Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes, cross
> referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
>
> Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
>
> I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
> the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs: different
> attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so the
> old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
> different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
>
> That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github for
> review.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Gabor Bota <ga...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Although we will use github with PRs, I'd still prefer adding a +1 as a
jira comment stating which PR was the last and approved one among the many.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:22 AM Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
> <eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> > track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
> >
> >
> Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes, cross
> referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
>
> Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
>
> I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
> the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs: different
> attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so the
> old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
> different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
>
> That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github for
> review.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
<eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
> Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
>
>
Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes, cross
referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs: different
attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so the
old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github for
review.
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
<eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
> Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
>
>
Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes, cross
referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs: different
attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so the
old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github for
review.
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
<eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
> Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
>
>
Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes, cross
referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs: different
attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so the
old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github for
review.
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:29 PM Eric Badger
<eb...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote:
> Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
> track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
>
>
Every code contribution needs its JIRA for: tracking, release notes, cross
referencing; every committed patch needs that JIRA reference.
Reviews of specific patches go into the PRs
I actually think discussion about overall direction of work is better in
the JIRA, because a complex piece of work can have multiple PRs: different
attempts where when you need to rebase its best to create a new one so the
old discussion is still linked to specific lines of code, and when
different people take a PR and contribute their own work.
That split of comments across >1 PR is one of the costs of using github for
review.
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Eric Badger <eb...@verizonmedia.com.INVALID>.
Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
Eric
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dinesh Chitlangia
<dc...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1 Absolutely. It also makes it easy/clean for reviewers to leave specific
> comments and the authors can make incremental changes without the hassles
> of generating iterative patch files.
>
> Thanks,
> Dinesh
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> > andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
> >
> > The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> > committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> > Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> > reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> > Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> > that Github PR is the preferred method.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Eric Badger <eb...@verizonmedia.com.INVALID>.
Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
Eric
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dinesh Chitlangia
<dc...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1 Absolutely. It also makes it easy/clean for reviewers to leave specific
> comments and the authors can make incremental changes without the hassles
> of generating iterative patch files.
>
> Thanks,
> Dinesh
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> > andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
> >
> > The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> > committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> > Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> > reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> > Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> > that Github PR is the preferred method.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Eric Badger <eb...@verizonmedia.com.INVALID>.
Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
Eric
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dinesh Chitlangia
<dc...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1 Absolutely. It also makes it easy/clean for reviewers to leave specific
> comments and the authors can make incremental changes without the hassles
> of generating iterative patch files.
>
> Thanks,
> Dinesh
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> > andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
> >
> > The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> > committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> > Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> > reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> > Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> > that Github PR is the preferred method.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Eric Badger <eb...@verizonmedia.com.INVALID>.
Where would JIRA fit into the PR workflow? Would we file JIRAs just to
track github PRs and have all of the discussion on the PR?
Eric
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dinesh Chitlangia
<dc...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1 Absolutely. It also makes it easy/clean for reviewers to leave specific
> comments and the authors can make incremental changes without the hassles
> of generating iterative patch files.
>
> Thanks,
> Dinesh
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> > andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
> >
> > The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> > committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> > Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> > reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> > Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> > that Github PR is the preferred method.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Dinesh Chitlangia <dc...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
+1 Absolutely. It also makes it easy/clean for reviewers to leave specific
comments and the authors can make incremental changes without the hassles
of generating iterative patch files.
Thanks,
Dinesh
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
>
> The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> that Github PR is the preferred method.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Dinesh Chitlangia <dc...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
+1 Absolutely. It also makes it easy/clean for reviewers to leave specific
comments and the authors can make incremental changes without the hassles
of generating iterative patch files.
Thanks,
Dinesh
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
>
> The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> that Github PR is the preferred method.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Dinesh Chitlangia <dc...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
+1 Absolutely. It also makes it easy/clean for reviewers to leave specific
comments and the authors can make incremental changes without the hassles
of generating iterative patch files.
Thanks,
Dinesh
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
>
> The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> that Github PR is the preferred method.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
a word of caution. according to INFRA-18748, asf infra is going to be
cutting out blind PR building. So we'll need to be sure that precommit
integration works e.g. testing PRs because there's a JIRA that a
whitelisted contributor has associated and put in patch available
status.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
>
> The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> that Github PR is the preferred method.
>
> Thoughts?
--
busbey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
a word of caution. according to INFRA-18748, asf infra is going to be
cutting out blind PR building. So we'll need to be sure that precommit
integration works e.g. testing PRs because there's a JIRA that a
whitelisted contributor has associated and put in patch available
status.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
>
> The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> that Github PR is the preferred method.
>
> Thoughts?
--
busbey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer Github PR Integration over patch in JIRA
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
a word of caution. according to INFRA-18748, asf infra is going to be
cutting out blind PR building. So we'll need to be sure that precommit
integration works e.g. testing PRs because there's a JIRA that a
whitelisted contributor has associated and put in patch available
status.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:06 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Historically, Hadoop developers create patches and attache them to JIRA,
> andthen the Yetus bot runs precommit against the patch in the JIRA.
>
> The Github PR is more convenient for code review and less hassle for
> committers to merge a commit. I am proposing for the community to prefer
> Github PR over the traditional patch-in-jira. This doesn't mean we will
> reject the traditional way, but we can move gradually to the new way.
> Additionally, update the Hadoop "How to contribute" wiki, and advertise
> that Github PR is the preferred method.
>
> Thoughts?
--
busbey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org