osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PROPOSAL] [community] A more structured approach to reviews and contributions


On the template discussion, some thoughts

*PR Template*

I think the PR template went well. We can rethink the "checklist" at the
bottom, but all other parts turned out helpful in my opinion.

With the amount of contributions, it helps to ask the contributor to take a
little more work in order for the reviewer to be more efficient.
I would suggest to keep that mindset: Whenever we find a way that the
contributor can prepare stuff in such a way that reviews become
more efficient, we should do that. In my experience, most contributors are
willing to put in some extra minutes if it helps that their
PR gets merged faster.

*Review Template*

I think it would be helpful to have this checklist. It does not matter in
which form, be that as a text template, be that as labels.

The most important thing is to make explicit which questions have been
answered in the review.
Currently there is a lot of "+1" on pull requests which means "code quality
is fine", but all other questions are unanswered.
The contributors then rightfully wonder why this does not get merged.



On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:26 AM, 陈梓立 <wander4096@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi all interested,
>
> Within the document there is a heated discussion about how the PR
> template/review template should be.
>
> Here share my opinion:
>
> 1. For the review template, actually we don't need comment a review
> template at all. GitHub has a tag system and only committer could add tags,
> which we can make use of it. That is, tagging this PR is
> waiting-for-proposal-approved, waiting-for-code-review,
> waiting-for-benchmark or block-by-author and so on. Asfbot could pick
> GitHub tag state to the corresponding JIRA and we always regard JIRA as the
> main discussion borad.
>
> 2. For the PR template, the greeting message is redundant. Just emphasize a
> JIRA associated is important and how to format the title is enough.
> Besides, the "Does this pull request potentially affect one of the
> following parts" part and "Documentation" should be coved from "What is the
> purpose of the change" and "Brief change log". These two parts, users
> always answer no and would be aware if they really make changes on it. As
> example, even pull request requires document, its owner might no add it at
> first. The PR template is a guide but not which one have to learn.
>
> To sum up, (1) take advantage of GitHub's tag system to tag review progress
> (2) make the template more concise to avoid burden mature contributors and
> force new comer to learn too much.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
>
> Rong Rong <walterddr@xxxxxxxxx> 于2018年9月18日周二 上午7:05写道:
>
> > Thanks for putting the review contribution doc together, Stephan! This
> will
> > definitely help the community to make the review process better.
> >
> > From my experience this will benefit on both contributors and reviewers
> > side! Thus +1 for putting into practice as well.
> >
> > --
> > Rong
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:18 AM Stephan Ewen <sewen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Thanks you for the encouraging feedback so far.
> > >
> > > The overall goal is definitely to make the contribution process better
> > and
> > > get fewer pull requests that are disregarded.
> > >
> > > There are various reasons for the disregarded pull requests, one being
> > that
> > > fewer committers really participate in reviews beyond
> > > the component they are currently very involved with. This is a separate
> > > issue and I am thinking on how to encourage more
> > > activity there.
> > >
> > > The other reason I was lack of structure and lack of decision making,
> > which
> > > is what I am first trying to fix here.
> > > A follow-up to this will definitely be to improve the contribution
> guide
> > as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Stephan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) <
> > > wangzhijiang999@xxxxxxxxxx.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From my personal experience as a contributor for three years, I feel
> > > > better experience in contirbuting or reviewing than before, although
> we
> > > > still have some points for further progress.
> > > >
> > > > I reviewed the proposal doc, and it gives very constructive and
> > > meaningful
> > > > guides which could help both contributor and reviewer. I agree with
> the
> > > > bove suggestions and wish they can be praticed well!
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Zhijiang
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 发件人:Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 发送时间:2018年9月17日(星期一) 16:27
> > > > 收件人:dev <dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 主 题:Re: [PROPOSAL] [community] A more structured approach to reviews
> > and
> > > > contributions
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for writing this up Stephan. I like the steps and hope that it
> > > will
> > > > help the community to make the review process better. Thus, +1 for
> > > putting
> > > > your proposal to practice.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Till
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM Stephan Ewen <sewen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Flink community members!
> > > > >
> > > > > As many of you will have noticed, the Flink project activity has
> gone
> > > up
> > > > > again quite a bit.
> > > > > There are many more contributions, which is an absolutely great
> thing
> > > to
> > > > > have :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > However, we see a continuously growing backlog of pull requests and
> > > JIRA
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > To make sure the community will be able to handle the increased
> > > volume, I
> > > > > think we need to revisit some
> > > > > approaches and processes. I believe there are a few opportunities
> to
> > > > > structure things a bit better, which
> > > > > should help to scale the development.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first thing I would like to bring up are *Pull Request
> Reviews*.
> > > Even
> > > > > though more community members being
> > > > > active in reviews (which is a really great thing!) the Pull Request
> > > > backlog
> > > > > is increasing quite a bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are pull requests still not merged faster? Looking at the
> > reviews,
> > > > one
> > > > > thing I noticed is that most reviews deal
> > > > > immediately with detailed code issues, and leave out most of the
> core
> > > > > questions that need to be answered
> > > > > before a Pull Request can be merged, like "is this a desired
> > feature?"
> > > or
> > > > > "does this align well with other developments?".
> > > > > I think that we even make things slightly worse that way: From my
> > > > personal
> > > > > experience, I have often thought "oh, this
> > > > > PR has a review already" and rather looked at another PR, only to
> > find
> > > > > later that the first review did never decide whether
> > > > > this PR is actually a good fit for Flink.
> > > > >
> > > > > There has never been a proper documentation of how to answer these
> > > > > questions, what to evaluate in reviews,
> > > > > guidelines for how to evaluate pull requests, other than code
> > quality.
> > > I
> > > > > suspect that this is why so many reviewers
> > > > > do not address the "is this a good contribution" questions, making
> > pull
> > > > > requests linger until another committers joins
> > > > > the review.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is an idea for a guide *"How to Review Contributions"*. It
> > > outlines
> > > > > five core aspects to be checked in every
> > > > > pull request, and suggests a priority for clarifying those. The
> idea
> > is
> > > > > that this helps us to better structure reviews, and
> > > > > to make each reviewer aware what we look for in a review and where
> to
> > > > best
> > > > > bring in their help.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking forward to comments!
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Stephan
> > > > >
> > > > > ====================================
> > > > >
> > > > > The draft is in this Google Doc. Please add small textual comments
> to
> > > the
> > > > > doc, and bigger principle discussions as replies to this mail.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yaX2b9LNh-6LxrAmE23U3D2c
> > > > RbocGlGKCYnvJd9lVhk/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *How to Review Contributions------------------------------This
> guide
> > is
> > > > for
> > > > > all committers and contributors that want to help with reviewing
> > > > > contributions. Thank you for your effort - good reviews are one the
> > > most
> > > > > important and crucial parts of an open source project. This guide
> > > should
> > > > > help the community to make reviews such that: - Contributors have a
> > > good
> > > > > contribution experience- Reviews are structured and check all
> > important
> > > > > aspects of a contribution- Make sure we keep a high code quality in
> > > > Flink-
> > > > > We avoid situations where contributors and reviewers spend a lot of
> > > time
> > > > to
> > > > > refine a contribution that gets rejected laterReview ChecklistEvery
> > > > review
> > > > > needs to check the following five aspects. We encourage to check
> > these
> > > > > aspects in order, to avoid spending time on detailed code quality
> > > reviews
> > > > > when there is not yet consensus that a feature or change should be
> > > > actually
> > > > > be added.(1) Is there consensus whether the change of feature
> should
> > go
> > > > > into to Flink?For bug fixes, this needs to be checked only in case
> it
> > > > > requires bigger changes or might break existing programs and
> > > > > setups.Ideally, this question is already answered from a JIRA issue
> > or
> > > > the
> > > > > dev-list discussion, except in cases of bug fixes and small
> > lightweight
> > > > > additions/extensions. In that case, this question can be
> immediately
> > > > marked
> > > > > as resolved. For pull requests that are created without prior
> > > consensus,
> > > > > this question needs to be answered as part of the review.The
> decision
> > > > > whether the change should go into Flink needs to take the following
> > > > aspects
> > > > > into consideration: - Does the contribution alter the behavior of
> > > > features
> > > > > or components in a way that it may break previous users’ programs
> and
> > > > > setups? If yes, there needs to be a discussion and agreement that
> > this
> > > > > change is desirable. - Does the contribution conceptually fit well
> > into
> > > > > Flink? Is it too much of special case such that it makes things
> more
> > > > > complicated for the common case, or bloats the abstractions /
> APIs? -
> > > > Does
> > > > > the feature fit well into Flink’s architecture? Will it scale and
> > keep
> > > > > Flink flexible for the future, or will the feature restrict Flink
> in
> > > the
> > > > > future? - Is the feature a significant new addition (rather than an
> > > > > improvement to an existing part)? If yes, will the Flink community
> > > commit
> > > > > to maintaining this feature? - Does the feature produce added value
> > for
> > > > > Flink users or developers? Or does it introduce risk of regression
> > > > without
> > > > > adding relevant user or developer benefit?All of these questions
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > answerable from the description/discussion in JIRA and Pull
> Request,
> > > > > without looking at the code.(2) Does the contribution need
> attention
> > > from
> > > > > some specific committers and is there time commitment from these
> > > > > committers?Some changes require attention and approval from
> specific
> > > > > committers. For example, changes in parts that are either very
> > > > performance
> > > > > sensitive, or have a critical impact on distributed coordination
> and
> > > > fault
> > > > > tolerance need input by a committer that is deeply familiar with
> the
> > > > > component.As a rule of thumb, this is the case when the Pull
> Request
> > > > > description answers one of the questions in the template section
> > “Does
> > > > this
> > > > > pull request potentially affect one of the following parts” with
> > > > ‘yes’.This
> > > > > question can be answered with - Does not need specific attention-
> > Needs
> > > > > specific attention for X (X can be for example checkpointing,
> > > jobmanager,
> > > > > etc.).- Has specific attention for X by @commiterA, @contributorBIf
> > the
> > > > > pull request needs specific attention, one of the tagged
> > > > > committers/contributors should give the final approval.(3) Is the
> > > > > contribution described well?Check whether the contribution is
> > > > sufficiently
> > > > > well described to support a good review. Trivial changes and fixes
> do
> > > not
> > > > > need a long description. Any pull request that changes
> functionality
> > or
> > > > > behavior needs to describe the big picture of these changes, so
> that
> > > > > reviews know what to look for (and don’t have to dig through the
> code
> > > to
> > > > > hopefully understand what the change does).Changes that require
> > longer
> > > > > descriptions are ideally based on a prior design discussion in the
> > > > mailing
> > > > > list or in JIRA and can simply link to there or copy the
> description
> > > from
> > > > > there.(4) Does the implementation follow the right overall
> > > > > approach/architecture?Is this the best approach to implement the
> fix
> > or
> > > > > feature, or are there other approaches that would be easier, more
> > > robust,
> > > > > or more maintainable?This question should be answerable from the
> Pull
> > > > > Request description (or the linked JIRA) as much as possible.We
> > > recommend
> > > > > to check this before diving into the details of commenting on
> > > individual
> > > > > parts of the change.(5) Is the overall code quality good, meeting
> > > > standard
> > > > > we want to maintain in Flink?This is the detailed code review of
> the
> > > > actual
> > > > > changes, covering: - Are the changes doing what is described in the
> > > > design
> > > > > document or PR description?- Does the code follow the right
> software
> > > > > engineering practices? It the code correct, robust, maintainable,
> > > > > testable?- Are the change performance aware, when changing a
> > > performance
> > > > > sensitive part?- Are the changes sufficiently covered by tests?-
> Are
> > > the
> > > > > tests executing fast?- Does the code format follow Flink’s
> checkstyle
> > > > > pattern?- Does the code avoid to introduce additional compiler
> > > > > warnings?Some code style guidelines can be found in the [Flink Code
> > > Style
> > > > > Page](https://flink.apache.org/contribute-code.html#code-style
> > > > > <https://flink.apache.org/contribute-code.html#code-style>)Pull
> > > Request
> > > > > Review TemplateAdd the following checklist to the pull request
> > review,
> > > > > checking the boxes as the questions are answered:  - [ ] Consensus
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > contribution should go into to Flink  - [ ] Does not need specific
> > > > > attention | Needs specific attention for X | Has attention for X
> by Y
> > > -
> > > > [
> > > > > ] Contribution description  - [ ] Architectural approach  - [ ]
> > Overall
> > > > > code quality*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>