Help Wanted

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Help Wanted

Andrew Psaltis
Oleg,
I would love to help -- couple of quick questions:

The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute guide (Code
review process --
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
) shows a JIRA list with patches available.

Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just looking for
code review or same process of apply local merge and test?

Thanks,
Andrew

On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Guys
>
>I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi
community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users)
>
>While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to admit that
now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the Apache NiFi
and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community that we
have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety of
business domains.
>This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if not all
of you share this sentiment.
>
>That said and FWIW we need help!
>While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and patches,
we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact that most
of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi feature
base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain as they
are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this same
community and that is where we need help. While “merge" responsibilities
are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of every member
of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to
redirect some of your efforts to this process.
>We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular development cycle
is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses 0.7.0 and
1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking changes if
any etc.)
>
>Cheers
>Oleg
>

--
Thanks,
Andrew
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Wanted

Oleg Zhurakousky
Andrew

Thank you so much for following up on this.
I am assuming you have GitHub account. If not please create one as most of our contributions deal with pull requests (PR).
Then you can go to https://github.com/apache/nifi , click on “Pull Requests” and review them by commenting in line (you can see plenty of examples there of PRs that are already in review process).

I would also suggest to get familiar with Contributor’s guideline for NiFi - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide. But it appears you have already done so and I think there may be small discrepancy in the link you provided or may be it is not as dynamic.
In any event JIRA and GutHub are good resources to use.

As for the last question, the best case scenario is both (code review and test). Having said that we do realize that your time and the time of every contributor may be limited, so I say whatever you can. Some time quick code scan can uncover the obvious that doesn’t need testing.

Thanks again
Cheers
Oleg
On May 3, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

Oleg,
I would love to help -- couple of quick questions:

The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute guide (Code
review process --
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
) shows a JIRA list with patches available.

Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just looking for
code review or same process of apply local merge and test?

Thanks,
Andrew

On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Guys

I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi
community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users)

While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to admit that
now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the Apache NiFi
and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community that we
have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety of
business domains.
This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if not all
of you share this sentiment.

That said and FWIW we need help!
While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and patches,
we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact that most
of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi feature
base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain as they
are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this same
community and that is where we need help. While “merge" responsibilities
are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of every member
of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to
redirect some of your efforts to this process.
We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular development cycle
is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses 0.7.0 and
1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking changes if
any etc.)

Cheers
Oleg


--
Thanks,
Andrew

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Wanted

Andrew Psaltis
Thank you Oleg!

Yeah, that page with the Code Review, has a little refresh link, but it
really just points to this JIRA query:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837?filter=12331874

As a community is there a preference given to JIRA's with Patch or GH PR's
or are they all treated with the same priority?

Thanks,
Andrew

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew
>
> Thank you so much for following up on this.
> I am assuming you have GitHub account. If not please create one as most of
> our contributions deal with pull requests (PR).
> Then you can go to https://github.com/apache/nifi , click on “Pull
> Requests” and review them by commenting in line (you can see plenty of
> examples there of PRs that are already in review process).
>
> I would also suggest to get familiar with Contributor’s guideline for NiFi
> - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide. But
> it appears you have already done so and I think there may be small
> discrepancy in the link you provided or may be it is not as dynamic.
> In any event JIRA and GutHub are good resources to use.
>
> As for the last question, the best case scenario is both (code review and
> test). Having said that we do realize that your time and the time of every
> contributor may be limited, so I say whatever you can. Some time quick code
> scan can uncover the obvious that doesn’t need testing.
>
> Thanks again
> Cheers
> Oleg
>
> On May 3, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Oleg,
> I would love to help -- couple of quick questions:
>
> The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute guide (Code
> review process --
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
> ) shows a JIRA list with patches available.
>
> Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just looking for
> code review or same process of apply local merge and test?
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Guys
>
> I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi
>
> community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users)
>
>
> While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to admit that
>
> now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the Apache NiFi
> and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community that we
> have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety of
> business domains.
>
> This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if not all
>
> of you share this sentiment.
>
>
> That said and FWIW we need help!
> While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and patches,
>
> we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact that most
> of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi feature
> base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain as they
> are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this same
> community and that is where we need help. While “merge" responsibilities
> are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of every member
> of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to
> redirect some of your efforts to this process.
>
> We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular development cycle
>
> is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses 0.7.0 and
> 1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking changes if
> any etc.)
>
>
> Cheers
> Oleg
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
>


--
Thanks,
Andrew

Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Wanted

Oleg Zhurakousky
Andrew

Regarding PR vs. Patch.

This has been an ongoing discussion and i’ll let other’s to contribute to this. Basically we support both. That said, personally (and it appears to be embraced by the rest of the community) PR is the preference specifically due to the inline review/comment capabilities provided by GitHub.

Cheers
Oleg
 

> On May 3, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thank you Oleg!
>
> Yeah, that page with the Code Review, has a little refresh link, but it
> really just points to this JIRA query:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837?filter=12331874
>
> As a community is there a preference given to JIRA's with Patch or GH PR's
> or are they all treated with the same priority?
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew
>>
>> Thank you so much for following up on this.
>> I am assuming you have GitHub account. If not please create one as most of
>> our contributions deal with pull requests (PR).
>> Then you can go to https://github.com/apache/nifi , click on “Pull
>> Requests” and review them by commenting in line (you can see plenty of
>> examples there of PRs that are already in review process).
>>
>> I would also suggest to get familiar with Contributor’s guideline for NiFi
>> - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide. But
>> it appears you have already done so and I think there may be small
>> discrepancy in the link you provided or may be it is not as dynamic.
>> In any event JIRA and GutHub are good resources to use.
>>
>> As for the last question, the best case scenario is both (code review and
>> test). Having said that we do realize that your time and the time of every
>> contributor may be limited, so I say whatever you can. Some time quick code
>> scan can uncover the obvious that doesn’t need testing.
>>
>> Thanks again
>> Cheers
>> Oleg
>>
>> On May 3, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Oleg,
>> I would love to help -- couple of quick questions:
>>
>> The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute guide (Code
>> review process --
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
>> ) shows a JIRA list with patches available.
>>
>> Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just looking for
>> code review or same process of apply local merge and test?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Guys
>>
>> I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi
>>
>> community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users)
>>
>>
>> While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to admit that
>>
>> now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the Apache NiFi
>> and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community that we
>> have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety of
>> business domains.
>>
>> This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if not all
>>
>> of you share this sentiment.
>>
>>
>> That said and FWIW we need help!
>> While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and patches,
>>
>> we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact that most
>> of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi feature
>> base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain as they
>> are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this same
>> community and that is where we need help. While “merge" responsibilities
>> are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of every member
>> of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to
>> redirect some of your efforts to this process.
>>
>> We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular development cycle
>>
>> is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses 0.7.0 and
>> 1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking changes if
>> any etc.)
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Oleg
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
> twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Wanted

Suneel Marthi
PR is the standard now across most Apache projects.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew
>
> Regarding PR vs. Patch.
>
> This has been an ongoing discussion and i’ll let other’s to contribute to
> this. Basically we support both. That said, personally (and it appears to
> be embraced by the rest of the community) PR is the preference specifically
> due to the inline review/comment capabilities provided by GitHub.
>
> Cheers
> Oleg
>
> > On May 3, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Oleg!
> >
> > Yeah, that page with the Code Review, has a little refresh link, but it
> > really just points to this JIRA query:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837?filter=12331874
> >
> > As a community is there a preference given to JIRA's with Patch or GH
> PR's
> > or are they all treated with the same priority?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> Thank you so much for following up on this.
> >> I am assuming you have GitHub account. If not please create one as most
> of
> >> our contributions deal with pull requests (PR).
> >> Then you can go to https://github.com/apache/nifi , click on “Pull
> >> Requests” and review them by commenting in line (you can see plenty of
> >> examples there of PRs that are already in review process).
> >>
> >> I would also suggest to get familiar with Contributor’s guideline for
> NiFi
> >> - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide.
> But
> >> it appears you have already done so and I think there may be small
> >> discrepancy in the link you provided or may be it is not as dynamic.
> >> In any event JIRA and GutHub are good resources to use.
> >>
> >> As for the last question, the best case scenario is both (code review
> and
> >> test). Having said that we do realize that your time and the time of
> every
> >> contributor may be limited, so I say whatever you can. Some time quick
> code
> >> scan can uncover the obvious that doesn’t need testing.
> >>
> >> Thanks again
> >> Cheers
> >> Oleg
> >>
> >> On May 3, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Oleg,
> >> I would love to help -- couple of quick questions:
> >>
> >> The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute guide
> (Code
> >> review process --
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
> >> ) shows a JIRA list with patches available.
> >>
> >> Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just looking
> for
> >> code review or same process of apply local merge and test?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Guys
> >>
> >> I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi
> >>
> >> community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users)
> >>
> >>
> >> While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to admit
> that
> >>
> >> now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the Apache
> NiFi
> >> and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community that we
> >> have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety of
> >> business domains.
> >>
> >> This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if not
> all
> >>
> >> of you share this sentiment.
> >>
> >>
> >> That said and FWIW we need help!
> >> While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and
> patches,
> >>
> >> we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact that
> most
> >> of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi
> feature
> >> base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain as
> they
> >> are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this same
> >> community and that is where we need help. While “merge" responsibilities
> >> are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of every
> member
> >> of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to
> >> redirect some of your efforts to this process.
> >>
> >> We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular development
> cycle
> >>
> >> is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses 0.7.0
> and
> >> 1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking changes if
> >> any etc.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Oleg
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew
> >
> > Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
> > twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Wanted

Bryan Bende
They are treated with same priority, but as Oleg mentioned, the PRs do make
it easier for collaborative review and has the built in integration with
Travis, although currently some issues to get it consistently working.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Suneel Marthi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> PR is the standard now across most Apache projects.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew
>>
>> Regarding PR vs. Patch.
>>
>> This has been an ongoing discussion and i’ll let other’s to contribute to
>> this. Basically we support both. That said, personally (and it appears to
>> be embraced by the rest of the community) PR is the preference specifically
>> due to the inline review/comment capabilities provided by GitHub.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Oleg
>>
>> > On May 3, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you Oleg!
>> >
>> > Yeah, that page with the Code Review, has a little refresh link, but it
>> > really just points to this JIRA query:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837?filter=12331874
>> >
>> > As a community is there a preference given to JIRA's with Patch or GH
>> PR's
>> > or are they all treated with the same priority?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
>> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >> Thank you so much for following up on this.
>> >> I am assuming you have GitHub account. If not please create one as
>> most of
>> >> our contributions deal with pull requests (PR).
>> >> Then you can go to https://github.com/apache/nifi , click on “Pull
>> >> Requests” and review them by commenting in line (you can see plenty of
>> >> examples there of PRs that are already in review process).
>> >>
>> >> I would also suggest to get familiar with Contributor’s guideline for
>> NiFi
>> >> - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide.
>> But
>> >> it appears you have already done so and I think there may be small
>> >> discrepancy in the link you provided or may be it is not as dynamic.
>> >> In any event JIRA and GutHub are good resources to use.
>> >>
>> >> As for the last question, the best case scenario is both (code review
>> and
>> >> test). Having said that we do realize that your time and the time of
>> every
>> >> contributor may be limited, so I say whatever you can. Some time quick
>> code
>> >> scan can uncover the obvious that doesn’t need testing.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Oleg
>> >>
>> >> On May 3, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Oleg,
>> >> I would love to help -- couple of quick questions:
>> >>
>> >> The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute guide
>> (Code
>> >> review process --
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
>> >> ) shows a JIRA list with patches available.
>> >>
>> >> Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just
>> looking for
>> >> code review or same process of apply local merge and test?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >> On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Guys
>> >>
>> >> I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi
>> >>
>> >> community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to admit
>> that
>> >>
>> >> now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the Apache
>> NiFi
>> >> and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community that
>> we
>> >> have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety of
>> >> business domains.
>> >>
>> >> This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if not
>> all
>> >>
>> >> of you share this sentiment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That said and FWIW we need help!
>> >> While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and
>> patches,
>> >>
>> >> we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact that
>> most
>> >> of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi
>> feature
>> >> base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain as
>> they
>> >> are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this same
>> >> community and that is where we need help. While “merge"
>> responsibilities
>> >> are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of every
>> member
>> >> of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to
>> >> redirect some of your efforts to this process.
>> >>
>> >> We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular development
>> cycle
>> >>
>> >> is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses 0.7.0
>> and
>> >> 1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking changes
>> if
>> >> any etc.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Oleg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks,
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
>> > twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Wanted

Andrew Psaltis
Totally agree on all fronts. Would seem like it makes sense for a
documentation PR to be opened soon with updates to the
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
page to remove the ambiguity.


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Bryan Bende <[hidden email]> wrote:

> They are treated with same priority, but as Oleg mentioned, the PRs do
> make it easier for collaborative review and has the built in integration
> with Travis, although currently some issues to get it consistently working.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Suneel Marthi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> PR is the standard now across most Apache projects.
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> Regarding PR vs. Patch.
>>>
>>> This has been an ongoing discussion and i’ll let other’s to contribute
>>> to this. Basically we support both. That said, personally (and it appears
>>> to be embraced by the rest of the community) PR is the preference
>>> specifically due to the inline review/comment capabilities provided by
>>> GitHub.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Oleg
>>>
>>> > On May 3, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Thank you Oleg!
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, that page with the Code Review, has a little refresh link, but it
>>> > really just points to this JIRA query:
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837?filter=12331874
>>> >
>>> > As a community is there a preference given to JIRA's with Patch or GH
>>> PR's
>>> > or are they all treated with the same priority?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Andrew
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
>>> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Andrew
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you so much for following up on this.
>>> >> I am assuming you have GitHub account. If not please create one as
>>> most of
>>> >> our contributions deal with pull requests (PR).
>>> >> Then you can go to https://github.com/apache/nifi , click on “Pull
>>> >> Requests” and review them by commenting in line (you can see plenty of
>>> >> examples there of PRs that are already in review process).
>>> >>
>>> >> I would also suggest to get familiar with Contributor’s guideline for
>>> NiFi
>>> >> - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide.
>>> But
>>> >> it appears you have already done so and I think there may be small
>>> >> discrepancy in the link you provided or may be it is not as dynamic.
>>> >> In any event JIRA and GutHub are good resources to use.
>>> >>
>>> >> As for the last question, the best case scenario is both (code review
>>> and
>>> >> test). Having said that we do realize that your time and the time of
>>> every
>>> >> contributor may be limited, so I say whatever you can. Some time
>>> quick code
>>> >> scan can uncover the obvious that doesn’t need testing.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks again
>>> >> Cheers
>>> >> Oleg
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 3, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]
>>> >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Oleg,
>>> >> I would love to help -- couple of quick questions:
>>> >>
>>> >> The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute guide
>>> (Code
>>> >> review process --
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
>>> >> ) shows a JIRA list with patches available.
>>> >>
>>> >> Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just
>>> looking for
>>> >> code review or same process of apply local merge and test?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Andrew
>>> >>
>>> >> On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <[hidden email]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Guys
>>> >>
>>> >> I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi
>>> >>
>>> >> community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to admit
>>> that
>>> >>
>>> >> now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the
>>> Apache NiFi
>>> >> and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community that
>>> we
>>> >> have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety of
>>> >> business domains.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if not
>>> all
>>> >>
>>> >> of you share this sentiment.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> That said and FWIW we need help!
>>> >> While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and
>>> patches,
>>> >>
>>> >> we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact
>>> that most
>>> >> of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi
>>> feature
>>> >> base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain as
>>> they
>>> >> are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this
>>> same
>>> >> community and that is where we need help. While “merge"
>>> responsibilities
>>> >> are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of every
>>> member
>>> >> of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to
>>> >> redirect some of your efforts to this process.
>>> >>
>>> >> We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular development
>>> cycle
>>> >>
>>> >> is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses 0.7.0
>>> and
>>> >> 1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking changes
>>> if
>>> >> any etc.)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers
>>> >> Oleg
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Andrew
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Andrew
>>> >
>>> > Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
>>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
>>> > twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


--
Thanks,
Andrew

Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Wanted

Bryan Bende
The "Patch Available" state in JIRA can mean a patch is attached to the
JIRA, or a PR is submitted.

It is really just a manual state transition on the ticket after
In-Progress... the next state is patch available which tells people there
is something to review.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Totally agree on all fronts. Would seem like it makes sense for a
> documentation PR to be opened soon with updates to the
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
> page to remove the ambiguity.
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Bryan Bende <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> They are treated with same priority, but as Oleg mentioned, the PRs do
>> make it easier for collaborative review and has the built in integration
>> with Travis, although currently some issues to get it consistently working.
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Suneel Marthi <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> PR is the standard now across most Apache projects.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>>> Regarding PR vs. Patch.
>>>>
>>>> This has been an ongoing discussion and i’ll let other’s to contribute
>>>> to this. Basically we support both. That said, personally (and it appears
>>>> to be embraced by the rest of the community) PR is the preference
>>>> specifically due to the inline review/comment capabilities provided by
>>>> GitHub.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Oleg
>>>>
>>>> > On May 3, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Thank you Oleg!
>>>> >
>>>> > Yeah, that page with the Code Review, has a little refresh link, but
>>>> it
>>>> > really just points to this JIRA query:
>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837?filter=12331874
>>>> >
>>>> > As a community is there a preference given to JIRA's with Patch or GH
>>>> PR's
>>>> > or are they all treated with the same priority?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Andrew
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
>>>> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Andrew
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thank you so much for following up on this.
>>>> >> I am assuming you have GitHub account. If not please create one as
>>>> most of
>>>> >> our contributions deal with pull requests (PR).
>>>> >> Then you can go to https://github.com/apache/nifi , click on “Pull
>>>> >> Requests” and review them by commenting in line (you can see plenty
>>>> of
>>>> >> examples there of PRs that are already in review process).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I would also suggest to get familiar with Contributor’s guideline
>>>> for NiFi
>>>> >> - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide.
>>>> But
>>>> >> it appears you have already done so and I think there may be small
>>>> >> discrepancy in the link you provided or may be it is not as dynamic.
>>>> >> In any event JIRA and GutHub are good resources to use.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As for the last question, the best case scenario is both (code
>>>> review and
>>>> >> test). Having said that we do realize that your time and the time of
>>>> every
>>>> >> contributor may be limited, so I say whatever you can. Some time
>>>> quick code
>>>> >> scan can uncover the obvious that doesn’t need testing.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks again
>>>> >> Cheers
>>>> >> Oleg
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On May 3, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Psaltis <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Oleg,
>>>> >> I would love to help -- couple of quick questions:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute
>>>> guide (Code
>>>> >> review process --
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
>>>> >> ) shows a JIRA list with patches available.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just
>>>> looking for
>>>> >> code review or same process of apply local merge and test?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >> Andrew
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <[hidden email]
>>>> >
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Guys
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi
>>>> >>
>>>> >> community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users)
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to admit
>>>> that
>>>> >>
>>>> >> now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the
>>>> Apache NiFi
>>>> >> and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community
>>>> that we
>>>> >> have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety of
>>>> >> business domains.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if
>>>> not all
>>>> >>
>>>> >> of you share this sentiment.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That said and FWIW we need help!
>>>> >> While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and
>>>> patches,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact
>>>> that most
>>>> >> of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi
>>>> feature
>>>> >> base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain
>>>> as they
>>>> >> are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this
>>>> same
>>>> >> community and that is where we need help. While “merge"
>>>> responsibilities
>>>> >> are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of every
>>>> member
>>>> >> of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to
>>>> >> redirect some of your efforts to this process.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular development
>>>> cycle
>>>> >>
>>>> >> is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses
>>>> 0.7.0 and
>>>> >> 1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking
>>>> changes if
>>>> >> any etc.)
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Cheers
>>>> >> Oleg
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >> Andrew
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Andrew
>>>> >
>>>> > Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
>>>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
>>>> > twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
> twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Help Wanted

Andrew Psaltis
Totally makes sense. My only comment was just in regards to the fact that
on that Wiki page there is no mention of looking at GH PR's. I agree that
in this day and age looking to GH, may be first inclination for many.
However, perhaps calling that out in the contribution guide would eliminate
ambiguity. For example this JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837, has a patch, but not a GH
PR.

Totally cool looking at both, just seems that it can be easy for someone
new to the project to miss something.



On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Bryan Bende <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The "Patch Available" state in JIRA can mean a patch is attached to the
> JIRA, or a PR is submitted.
>
> It is really just a manual state transition on the ticket after
> In-Progress... the next state is patch available which tells people there
> is something to review.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Psaltis <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Totally agree on all fronts. Would seem like it makes sense for a
>> documentation PR to be opened soon with updates to the
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
>> page to remove the ambiguity.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Bryan Bende <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> They are treated with same priority, but as Oleg mentioned, the PRs do
>>> make it easier for collaborative review and has the built in integration
>>> with Travis, although currently some issues to get it consistently working.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Suneel Marthi <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PR is the standard now across most Apache projects.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding PR vs. Patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been an ongoing discussion and i’ll let other’s to contribute
>>>>> to this. Basically we support both. That said, personally (and it appears
>>>>> to be embraced by the rest of the community) PR is the preference
>>>>> specifically due to the inline review/comment capabilities provided by
>>>>> GitHub.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Oleg
>>>>>
>>>>> > On May 3, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Psaltis <
>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thank you Oleg!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Yeah, that page with the Code Review, has a little refresh link, but
>>>>> it
>>>>> > really just points to this JIRA query:
>>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1837?filter=12331874
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As a community is there a preference given to JIRA's with Patch or
>>>>> GH PR's
>>>>> > or are they all treated with the same priority?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>> > Andrew
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
>>>>> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Andrew
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Thank you so much for following up on this.
>>>>> >> I am assuming you have GitHub account. If not please create one as
>>>>> most of
>>>>> >> our contributions deal with pull requests (PR).
>>>>> >> Then you can go to https://github.com/apache/nifi , click on “Pull
>>>>> >> Requests” and review them by commenting in line (you can see plenty
>>>>> of
>>>>> >> examples there of PRs that are already in review process).
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I would also suggest to get familiar with Contributor’s guideline
>>>>> for NiFi
>>>>> >> -
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide.
>>>>> But
>>>>> >> it appears you have already done so and I think there may be small
>>>>> >> discrepancy in the link you provided or may be it is not as dynamic.
>>>>> >> In any event JIRA and GutHub are good resources to use.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> As for the last question, the best case scenario is both (code
>>>>> review and
>>>>> >> test). Having said that we do realize that your time and the time
>>>>> of every
>>>>> >> contributor may be limited, so I say whatever you can. Some time
>>>>> quick code
>>>>> >> scan can uncover the obvious that doesn’t need testing.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Thanks again
>>>>> >> Cheers
>>>>> >> Oleg
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On May 3, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Andrew Psaltis <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Oleg,
>>>>> >> I would love to help -- couple of quick questions:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The GH PR's are ~60 as you indicated, but the How To Contribute
>>>>> guide (Code
>>>>> >> review process --
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Contributor+Guide#ContributorGuide-CodeReviewProcess
>>>>> >> ) shows a JIRA list with patches available.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Which should be reviewed first? For the PR's on GH are you just
>>>>> looking for
>>>>> >> code review or same process of apply local merge and test?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>> >> Andrew
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 5/3/16, 9:58 AM, "Oleg Zhurakousky" <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Guys
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I’d like to use this opportunity to address all members of the NiFi
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> community hence this email is sent to both mailing lists (dev/users)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> While somewhat skeptical when I started 6 month ago, I have to
>>>>> admit that
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> now I am very excited to observe the growth and adaption of the
>>>>> Apache NiFi
>>>>> >> and say that in large part it’s because of the healthy community
>>>>> that we
>>>>> >> have here - committers and contributors alike representing variety
>>>>> of
>>>>> >> business domains.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> This is absolutely great news for all of us and I am sure some if
>>>>> not all
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> of you share this sentiment.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> That said and FWIW we need help!
>>>>> >> While it’s great to wake up every morning to a set of new PRs and
>>>>> patches,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> we now have a bit of a back log. In large this is due to the fact
>>>>> that most
>>>>> >> of our efforts are spent in development as we all try to grow NiFi
>>>>> feature
>>>>> >> base. However we need to remember that PRs and patches will remain
>>>>> as they
>>>>> >> are unless and until they are reviewed/agreed to be merged by this
>>>>> same
>>>>> >> community and that is where we need help. While “merge"
>>>>> responsibilities
>>>>> >> are limited to “committers”, “review” is the responsibility of
>>>>> every member
>>>>> >> of this community and I would like to ask you if at all possible to
>>>>> >> redirect some of your efforts to this process.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> We currently have 61 outstanding PRs and this particular
>>>>> development cycle
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> is a bit more complex then the previous ones since it addresses
>>>>> 0.7.0 and
>>>>> >> 1.0.0 releases in parallel (so different approach to breaking
>>>>> changes if
>>>>> >> any etc.)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Cheers
>>>>> >> Oleg
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --
>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>> >> Andrew
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>> > Andrew
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
>>>>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
>>>>> > twiiter: @itmdata <
>>>>> http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
>> twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
>>
>
>


--
Thanks,
Andrew

Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>