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

Switch to Plain View
Kafka, mail # dev - git workflow


+
Jay Kreps 2013-01-02, 21:45
+
Jun Rao 2013-01-03, 16:18
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-05, 04:35
+
Jay Kreps 2013-01-05, 05:30
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-05, 05:41
+
David Arthur 2013-01-05, 17:38
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-05, 18:43
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-05, 19:02
+
Joe Stein 2013-01-06, 05:36
+
Derek Chen-Becker 2013-01-07, 05:52
+
David Arthur 2013-01-07, 14:45
+
Derek Chen-Becker 2013-01-07, 15:06
+
Jay Kreps 2013-01-07, 16:07
Copy link to this message
-
Re: git workflow
Derek Chen-Becker 2013-01-07, 16:33
If it's mandated by Apache rules, I understand, but I do think that
GitHub/git provide improved workflow over SVN + patch. Apache appears to be
mirroring to GitHub anyway:

https://github.com/apache/kafka

You even have a pull request (5 months old) already. Things like pull
request review/commenting, as mentioned, are very nice, and it would be a
shame to not be able to use them.

Derek
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The reason we take diffs is because traditionally the mandatory Apache
> toolchain is svn+jira+patch/diff. When we were on github of course we used
> that.
>
> I'm actually not sure of the Apache rules here. Can we just directly accept
> github pull requests? I.e. you fork the apache mirror and send a pull
> request? Github has lots of tools for seeing diffs, commenting on code, etc
> so this would be fantastic. Is that considered bad form? We could just have
> the JIRA point to the github url...
>
> -Jay
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Derek Chen-Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > It makes it easier for a non-committer to contribute via email, but with
> > publicly available repos (a la GitHub) it's just as easy to merge from a
> > remote (and doesn't require contorting through hoops for certain
> > scenarios).
> > On Jan 7, 2013 7:45 AM, "David Arthur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Diff/patch makes it easy for non-committer to contribute.
> > >
> > > On 1/7/13 12:52 AM, Derek Chen-Becker wrote:
> > >
> > >> Although I haven't contributed much here yet, I did want to ask: why
> > >> diff/patch and not pull/merge? I know my work on getting the SBT build
> > >> working with a modern SBT was quite a headache for everyone because
> the
> > >> diff format was unable to convey things like "delete this binary file
> > and
> > >> add this other one".
> > >>
> > >> Derek
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Joe Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  ok with some more research today it seems the difference and issues I
> > was
> > >>> having was from the patch being made with
> > >>>
> > >>> git diff vs git format-patch
> > >>>
> > >>> with git diff (which is how the patch I was reviewing was made) you
> > apply
> > >>> doing "patch -p1 < patch"
> > >>>
> > >>> no commits messages are preserved with git diff.  I think there are
> > pros
> > >>> and cons to this.
> > >>>
> > >>> If folks make good commit messages then this is great however I
> prefer
> > >>> the
> > >>> git diff patch myself from contribs because then I can commit with a
> > >>> message for the JIRA ticket and the reviewer
> > >>>
> > >>> thoughts on git diff vs git format-patch ?
> > >>>
> > >>> I updated the wiki to deal with the error i encountered since it
> > already
> > >>> references format-patch I but think we should have some consensus for
> > >>> contributors and how they should proceed and how we should too.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Joe Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>  Ok, I figured out the problem.  The problem was with the patch
> format
> > so
> > >>>>
> > >>> I
> > >>>
> > >>>> will take care of that ... the patch is minor enough I will take the
> > >>>> code
> > >>>> changes and whip up a new patch and let Maxime know (assuming that
> > patch
> > >>>>
> > >>> is
> > >>>
> > >>>> good) about how to make a Kafka patch moving forward).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I noticed the incubation URL was wrong on the README so I walked
> > through
> > >>>> the contributor steps and everything worked just perfectly
> > >>>>
> > >>>> the only thing I did notice is that the commit message I put in "as
> a
> > >>>> contributor" was part of the patch and everything so I think we
> should
> > >>>>
> > >>> call
> > >>>
> > >>>> out some guidelines for making commit messages, like always put the
> > >>>> KAFKA-XYZ in the message so when we review and push everything goes
> in
> > >>>>
> > >>> how
> > >>>
> > >>>> we expected if we made the change and committed ourselves.

*Derek Chen-Becker*
*Precog Lead Infrastructure Engineer*
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
303-752-1700

 
+
David Arthur 2013-01-02, 22:17
+
Jay Kreps 2013-01-03, 00:03
+
David Arthur 2013-01-03, 00:26