Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - JIRA Patch Conventions


+
Mike Drob 2013-04-24, 03:51
+
Keith Turner 2013-04-24, 13:32
+
Josh Elser 2013-04-24, 14:04
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-04-24, 15:07
+
John Vines 2013-04-24, 15:08
+
Corey Nolet 2013-04-24, 15:22
+
William Slacum 2013-04-24, 17:45
+
Christopher 2013-04-24, 18:04
Copy link to this message
-
Re: JIRA Patch Conventions
Brian Loss 2013-04-24, 19:28
+1 for this approach

On Apr 24, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 wrote:

> +1 for #2.
>
> Also, I like the convention: ACCUMULO-XXXX.#.patch, where XXX is the
> ticket number, and # is the 1-up identifier.
>
> The ACCUMULO-XXXX part is nice so you don't lose context when you
> download the file locally, and the .patch suffix is nice because many
> editors will do syntax highlighting. (of course, I'm talking about
> patches for the filename extension... one could just as easily provide
> a .java file or a .jpg or something else).
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM, William Slacum
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Leave the tickets on there. I'm not trying to romance you Mike, I want more
>> history and less mystery.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> #2 as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I too am in favor of the patch history being available.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Billie Rinaldi
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like #2 as well. Here's a quote from the incubator list confirming
>>> that
>>>>> we don't need ICLAs for patches.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Under the terms of the AL, any contribution made back to the ASF on
>>>>>> ASF infrastructure, such as via a mailing list, JIRA, or Bugzilla, is
>>>>>> licensed to the foundation. The JIRA checkbox existed to give people
>>>>>> an easy way to _avoid_ contributing something. There is no need to
>>> ask
>>>>>> casual patchers for ICLAs.
>>>>> On Apr 24, 2013 10:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/24/13 9:32 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Mike Drob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Accumulo Devs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there any conventions that we'd like to follow for attaching
>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>> patches to issues? There are two lines of thought applicable here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Remove the old one and attach the new patch. This has the
>>>> advantage
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> being immediately obvious to future google searchers what the patch
>>>>> was,
>>>>>>>> especially in case of back porting issues.
>>>>>>>> 2) Leave all patches attached to the ticket, and use a one-up
>>>>> identifier
>>>>>>>> for each subsequent patch. This preserves context from comments,
>>> and
>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>> be useful in other ways.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've seen both approaches used on Accumulo tickets, and don't have
>>> a
>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>> preference outside of a desire for consistency. I think I'd lean
>>>>> towards
>>>>>>>> option #2, if only because that means I get one fewer email
>>>>> notification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree I would like consistency.   I lean towards 2 also, but I
>>> do
>>>>> not
>>>>>>> have a good reason, its just my preference.  We should probably put
>>>>>>> together a page outlining how to submit a patch.  I have seen other
>>>>>>> projects do this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ditto.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an aside, what is the IP status of submitted patches? I think I
>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>> hearing that they immediately become part of the Apache Foundation,
>>>> so
>>>>>>>> removing them might be a bad idea from that perspective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does someone who is submitting patches need to submit an ICLA?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe they just need to be capable of assigning the copyright to
>>>> the
>>>>>> ASF (as in, an employer does not hold rights to the patch). I believe
>>>> the
>>>>>> ICLA is more for the case of a committer being able to use SVN (and
>>> not
>>>>>> having the jira checkbox).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Corey Nolet
>>> Senior Software Engineer
>>> TexelTek, inc.
>>> [Office] 301.880.7123
>>> [Cell] 410-903-2110