Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated JIRA. Now
with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs) that
don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the recent move
to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm wondering
if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on another
Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?

Regards,

Patrick

Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com>]

Note: we discuss this on our wiki too: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CURATOR/Submitting+Pull+Requests

> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:37 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated JIRA. Now
> with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs) that
> don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
> didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the recent move
> to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm wondering
> if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on another
> Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Patrick

Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org>]

Is it because of simplicity (no need to decide whether a jira is necessary) or there’s a huge downside of committing patches without Jiras?

Andor



> On 2019. Feb 27., at 17:41, Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> 
> For Curator we require a Jira. If we get a PR without a Jira we always ask them to create one.
> 
> -JZ
> 
>> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:37 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated JIRA. Now
>> with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs) that
>> don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
>> didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the recent move
>> to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm wondering
>> if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on another
>> Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Patrick
> 

Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com>]

For Curator we require a Jira. If we get a PR without a Jira we always ask them to create one.

-JZ

> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:37 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated JIRA. Now
> with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs) that
> don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
> didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the recent move
> to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm wondering
> if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on another
> Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Patrick

Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Norbert Kalmar <nk...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

I tend to agree with Tamaas. A few lines of typo fix and similar patches
should be OK.
Anything bigger, it should have a jira. Basically how it was done recently.

Regards,
Norbert

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 6:51 PM Tamas Penzes <ta...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:

> I think we should have a jira for all significant changes, and I would let
> the committer decide about what is significant or not.
>
> Basically anything worth to mention in the release notes should get a jira,
> but for typo fixes or other similar things we could spare it.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Regards, Tamaas
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 17:57 Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Yea, the commit I just did was a single missing space so no big deal.
> > Jordan's link is to curator current policy which seems very similar to
> > ours.
> >
> > I know what current state is. My question though is what do people think?
> > Stay with the current mechanism or move to something else? Staying put is
> > fine, I just wanted to review given it's been a while (10+ years!) since
> we
> > last considered this and with github/gitbox and time baselines have
> changed
> > considerably over that time.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:44 AM Andor Molnar <andor@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There were a few typo/language/cosmetic related patches which were so
> > small
> > > that we've decided it's probably not worth the effort to create a Jira
> > for
> > > every one of them.
> > > Similarly, I haven't created Jiras for issues that were found in
> release
> > > candidates.
> > >
> > > Other than this we generally still don't accept patches without Jira
> > ticket
> > > and properly formatted title / commit message.
> > >
> > > Andor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:38 PM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated
> JIRA.
> > > Now
> > > > with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs)
> that
> > > > don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
> > > > didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the
> recent
> > > move
> > > > to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm
> > > wondering
> > > > if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on
> > another
> > > > Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Patrick
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Tamas Penzes <ta...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

I think we should have a jira for all significant changes, and I would let
the committer decide about what is significant or not.

Basically anything worth to mention in the release notes should get a jira,
but for typo fixes or other similar things we could spare it.

Just my thoughts.

Regards, Tamaas

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 17:57 Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:

> Yea, the commit I just did was a single missing space so no big deal.
> Jordan's link is to curator current policy which seems very similar to
> ours.
>
> I know what current state is. My question though is what do people think?
> Stay with the current mechanism or move to something else? Staying put is
> fine, I just wanted to review given it's been a while (10+ years!) since we
> last considered this and with github/gitbox and time baselines have changed
> considerably over that time.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:44 AM Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > There were a few typo/language/cosmetic related patches which were so
> small
> > that we've decided it's probably not worth the effort to create a Jira
> for
> > every one of them.
> > Similarly, I haven't created Jiras for issues that were found in release
> > candidates.
> >
> > Other than this we generally still don't accept patches without Jira
> ticket
> > and properly formatted title / commit message.
> >
> > Andor
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:38 PM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated JIRA.
> > Now
> > > with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs) that
> > > don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
> > > didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the recent
> > move
> > > to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm
> > wondering
> > > if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on
> another
> > > Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Brian Nixon <br...@gmail.com>]

I like having JIRAs for all changes because it allows one to track all the
changes to given components through the JIRA web interface and it forces
the contributor to spend some time upfront making sure their change is a
single coherent unit.

For trivial changes like spelling, whitespace, pruning of import, does it
make sense to have one super/umbrella ticket with multiple PRs attached?

-Brian


On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:04 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that having a JIRA makes it simpler to create release notes and
> track bugfixes/new features.
> Trivial changes, like typos are not worth a JIRA.
>
> My 2 cents
> Enrico
>
> Il mer 27 feb 2019, 17:57 Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> > Yea, the commit I just did was a single missing space so no big deal.
> > Jordan's link is to curator current policy which seems very similar to
> > ours.
> >
> > I know what current state is. My question though is what do people think?
> > Stay with the current mechanism or move to something else? Staying put is
> > fine, I just wanted to review given it's been a while (10+ years!) since
> we
> > last considered this and with github/gitbox and time baselines have
> changed
> > considerably over that time.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:44 AM Andor Molnar <andor@cloudera.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There were a few typo/language/cosmetic related patches which were so
> > small
> > > that we've decided it's probably not worth the effort to create a Jira
> > for
> > > every one of them.
> > > Similarly, I haven't created Jiras for issues that were found in
> release
> > > candidates.
> > >
> > > Other than this we generally still don't accept patches without Jira
> > ticket
> > > and properly formatted title / commit message.
> > >
> > > Andor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:38 PM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated
> JIRA.
> > > Now
> > > > with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs)
> that
> > > > don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
> > > > didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the
> recent
> > > move
> > > > to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm
> > > wondering
> > > > if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on
> > another
> > > > Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Patrick
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

I think that having a JIRA makes it simpler to create release notes and
track bugfixes/new features.
Trivial changes, like typos are not worth a JIRA.

My 2 cents
Enrico

Il mer 27 feb 2019, 17:57 Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> ha scritto:

> Yea, the commit I just did was a single missing space so no big deal.
> Jordan's link is to curator current policy which seems very similar to
> ours.
>
> I know what current state is. My question though is what do people think?
> Stay with the current mechanism or move to something else? Staying put is
> fine, I just wanted to review given it's been a while (10+ years!) since we
> last considered this and with github/gitbox and time baselines have changed
> considerably over that time.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:44 AM Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > There were a few typo/language/cosmetic related patches which were so
> small
> > that we've decided it's probably not worth the effort to create a Jira
> for
> > every one of them.
> > Similarly, I haven't created Jiras for issues that were found in release
> > candidates.
> >
> > Other than this we generally still don't accept patches without Jira
> ticket
> > and properly formatted title / commit message.
> >
> > Andor
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:38 PM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated JIRA.
> > Now
> > > with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs) that
> > > don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
> > > didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the recent
> > move
> > > to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm
> > wondering
> > > if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on
> another
> > > Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

Yea, the commit I just did was a single missing space so no big deal.
Jordan's link is to curator current policy which seems very similar to ours.

I know what current state is. My question though is what do people think?
Stay with the current mechanism or move to something else? Staying put is
fine, I just wanted to review given it's been a while (10+ years!) since we
last considered this and with github/gitbox and time baselines have changed
considerably over that time.

Patrick


On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:44 AM Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:

> There were a few typo/language/cosmetic related patches which were so small
> that we've decided it's probably not worth the effort to create a Jira for
> every one of them.
> Similarly, I haven't created Jiras for issues that were found in release
> candidates.
>
> Other than this we generally still don't accept patches without Jira ticket
> and properly formatted title / commit message.
>
> Andor
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:38 PM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated JIRA.
> Now
> > with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs) that
> > don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
> > didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the recent
> move
> > to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm
> wondering
> > if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on another
> > Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Patrick
> >
>

Re: Question on ZK commit/patch policy.

[Andor Molnar <an...@cloudera.com.INVALID>]

There were a few typo/language/cosmetic related patches which were so small
that we've decided it's probably not worth the effort to create a Jira for
every one of them.
Similarly, I haven't created Jiras for issues that were found in release
candidates.

Other than this we generally still don't accept patches without Jira ticket
and properly formatted title / commit message.

Andor



On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:38 PM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:

> Historically we've only committed changes that have an associated JIRA. Now
> with the move to gitbox we are seeing increased submissions (PRs) that
> don't include a JIRA - I just committed one and then realized that it
> didn't include a JIRA (sorry about that!). Given github and the recent move
> to gitbox significantly streamlines the contribution process I'm wondering
> if we should reconsider our process. Any thoughts? Anyone work on another
> Apache project that does things differently and has pro/con to share?
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick
>