[jbosstools-dev] Any way to make FreeMarker IDE fixes available with less delay?

[Daniel Dekany]

Friday, July 8, 2016, 1:51:45 AM, Alexey Kazakov wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Sorry for the delays with PR review.

Don't... just merge. ;)

> I merged one PR.
> Regarding others... What will definitely help to dramatically speed up
> PR merging is a good automated test coverage.
> Please add tests for your PRs and fix licenses in the headers of new
> classes you are adding with these PRs and we will merge them ASAP.

Most fixed functionality had no test coverage earlier either, so I'm
fixing things without not fixing the lack of JUnit tests. Hence it
would be probably a better strategy to be more flexible for now, and
handle improving JUnit coverage as a separate issue.

(Sorry for the header oversights. Once the pending PR-s are in, I
will run a header replacer on the project.)

> We also now have a dedicated developer who will review freemarker PRs.

Sounds good, thank you!

> But please add tests for your PRs.
> If everything goes well we can consider giving you direct write access
> to the freemarker repo in the future.
>
> Thank you.
>
> On 07/07/2016 05:27 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>> Is it possible to become faster with PR merging on the expense of
>> thoroughness in the case of FreeMarker IDE, if I'm the one who sent
>> the PR (or if I have tested a PR)? I understand that there's very
>> little time for reviewing this plugin, that's why I'm trying to take
>
>> more responsibility on myself. Some recent PR-s are less trivial (more
>> time to thoroughly review) than the earlier merged ones, plus some
>> similar PR-s weren't even done yet because they build on top of the
>> ones not merged yet. So I'm a bit worried about how all these will get
>> in on time. Also, take into account that this plugin is quite broken
>> and was neglected for so long, so certainly I will only make it better
>> overall even if I introduce some regressions accidentally.
>>
>> For convenience, here are some of the pending PR-s:
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-20386
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-22636
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-22656
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-22659
>>
>>
>> Wednesday, April 13, 2016, 2:33:25 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>>
>>> Basically, I was thinking about pulling more responsibility on myself.
>>> That's surely a risk as I'm totally new to Eclipse plugin development,
>>> and I don't yet know your policies either. So it's very useful if some
>>> old timer JBoss Tool developers review the PR-s, but often I would
>>> rather take the risk so that I can quickly fix/update things. That's
>>> why on the FreeMarker list I asked if we could/should roll our own
>>> build and update site, which can thus publish things regardless of the
>>> pace PR-s can be processed (note that that thread has started before
>>> you guys started reviewing the PR-s). But of course, for me the best
>>> is if the whole process can stay here. So, who's possibly eligible for
>>> "reviewing and testing PR's", or how would that work?
>>>
>>>
>>> Monday, April 11, 2016, 11:26:11 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 Apr 2016, at 8:34, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much! To be perfectly clear, I didn't come here to
>>>>> complain and force JBoss employees to do this. I'm asking if there's a
>>>>> way to change the overall process somehow. Perhaps not, but, who
>>>>> knows...
>>>> There is - we have an updatesite for freemarker site that builds every
>>>> night, so you can releases/fixes from it more or less immediately.
>>>>
>>>> To get more content in, we need more content in PR's to the repos and if
>>>> someone
>>>> wants to step up to review and test PR's let us know.
>>>>
>>>> As you notice if we come aware of something going stale we do react - to
>>>> avoid it going
>>>> stale repeatedly we need someone to have time and skills to push
>>>> content.
>>>>
>>>> If it was something else you had in mind let me know. In any case, we
>>>> are pretty open
>>>> on what happens with freemarker tooling as long as it keeps (within
>>>> reason) being compatible with
>>>> multiple freemarker versions so it can be used in real projects that end
>>>> up having wide
>>>> range of freemarker content.
>>>>
>>>> /max
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Friday, April 8, 2016, 12:00:19 AM, Alexey Kazakov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for such long delays.
>>>>>> I pushed the 4-month old PR to the master. We are currently very busy
>>>>>> preparing JBoss Tools 4.3.1 release (should happen in two weeks) but
>>>>>> then we will find some time to review the other two PRs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your contributions!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2016 05:39 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm a contributor at the FreeMarker project, and would like to help
>>>>>>> maintaining JBoss Tools / FreeMarker IDE
>>>>>>> (org.jboss.ide.eclipse.freemarker). The problem I'm facing is that
>>>>>>> pull requests get merged with too big delay. For example, I have a
>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>> simple pull requests waiting for 4 months now, because of the
>>>>>>> limited
>>>>>>> resources available for reviewing them (as I was told). I wonder if
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> can help improving this situation somehow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the above can be addressed, then I guess I could specify the
>>>>>>> nightly build update site URL to the users, so that they aren't
>>>>>>> affected by the release cycle of JBoss Tools. After all, FreeMarker
>>>>>>> IDE is technically quite independent of it.
>
>

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany