[keycloak-dev] Commits/PRs

Fri Mar 11 08:57:47 EST 2016

On 11 March 2016 at 14:45, Peter Palaga <ppalaga at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Stian, inline...
>
> On 2016-03-11 06:53, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10 March 2016 at 22:17, Peter Palaga <ppalaga at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stian,
>>
>> just a few minor points. Please note that I am speaking primarily from
>> the standpoint of somebody who often looks into the history of KC branches,
>> because Hawkular (where I am primarily active) uses KC. I am not a regular
>> contributor to KC.
>>
>> (1)
>> > With JIRA key in commit and PRs linked in JIRA we get a good history
>> > that is useful in the future to identify what was changed and why.
>>
>> To see *what* was changed, I do not need to go to Jira. Git history is
>> the ultimate source of that info.
>>
>> As for the *why*, the project has to coin some convention. From what you
>> say it seems that it should be Jira, right? Yes, that is one of the
>> legitimate choices, but not the only possible one. Git commit messages may
>> serve the purpose too and I personally find them much more practical
>> because they are much closer to where I usually start looking. Jira is
>> usually one slooowly loading link further. Therefore, could you please
>> explain why you find Jira better?
>>
>
> One isn't better than the other. They serve different purposes. Git commit
> messages will tell you what code was changed, while JIRA descriptions will
> tell you why it was changed. Both are equally important. Making sure you
> can go from a JIRA issue to Git commits and the other way around are both
> important. Imagine two examples:
>
> * A user searches for a bug in JIRA to see if the problem he's having has
> been resolved. He finds the issue and wants to take a look at what changes
> was made to understand it better.
>
> Yes, I fully agree that the linking from Jira to GitHub makes sense.
>
> * A developer finds some code he wrote 12 months ago was changed, looks at
> Git history to see who did it, but has no idea why. He then sees the JIRA
> key in the commit message and opens it in JIRA. There he finds a lengthy
> description of the bug, including several comments.
>
> No, the explanation why the given commit was necessary may well be placed
> in the commit message itself. In many projects, this is the default place
> for that kind of info. Now, given that the motivation for the change can be
> described in the commit message, the overhead of creating a Jira needs to
> be justified. Writing the "why" to the commit message is much faster and
> more developer friendly than forcing contributors to create a Jira for
> every trivial improvement. I can say for myself that having to create a
> JIra before fixing some stupid bug substantially lowers my readiness to fix
> it at all.
>

There's always going to be JIRA issues for bug reports. They will describe
what the problem the user had as well as how to reproduce the bug. This
will be the most common scenario for a bug fix.

It's better to have the information in one place, and since there's no
getting away from JIRA, that's the one place this information belongs.
Commit messages should be short and refer to a JIRA.

>
>
> The work has to be scheduled the same as all other work.
>
> Yes, planning is fully legitimate within your team paid for the work but
> again, it sounds rather discouraging to me, an external contributor, when I
> just want to fix a malfunction in KC that blocks my primary task.
>

We can't just accept any random contribution. Any fix can bring
regressions, etc.. So it's not as simple as just fire off a quick fix to
something.

>
>
>
>> (2) I want tags in branches.
>> Your tags are outside branches (such as 1.9.x) and that makes it harder
>> to clearly and quickly see what happened between e.g. 1.9.0 and 1.9.1. You
>> are the second project doing it like this out of ~150 Java projects I have
>> ever cloned.
>>
>> Please consider tagging the usual way.
>>
>
> You've certainly cloned more repositories than I have.. I'm not sure what
> you mean. 1.9.x tags has to come from 1.9.x branch as master is now 2.x.
> Can you elaborate?
>
> Sure. This is the "normal" way, where tags 0.17.Final and 0.16.Final are
> *inside* a branch (master branch in this case):
>
>
> To get the tags from upstream, I do not need to use --tags with git fetch,
> because the in-branch tags are fetched also without --tags. Furthermore I
> can clearly see what happened between the yellow labels 0.17.Final and
> 0.16.Final.
>
> OTOH in KC, when I forget to fetch with --tags, switching to 1.9.x branch
> I get only this:
>
>
> No tags there. Only some hints like "Next is 1.9.2" where the tags are
> perhaps around. Nevermind, I know I have to fetch with --tags:
>
>
> Still no tags there, because they are out of the 1.9.x branch that I have
> checked out. To see them, I have to "Show all branches and tags" in egit.
> Sadly, that brings also master and other branches, that I do not want to
> see, but let's try to ignore them, and have a look at what happened between
> 1.9.0.Final and 1.9.1.Final:
>
>
> While it is relatively easy to find out how 1.9.1.Final tag relates to
> 1.9.x branch, I am completely lost on the other end: 1.9.0.Final is a long
> fork of 1.9.x that I cannot track down visually at all. If 1.9.0.Final and
> 1.9.1.Final tags were a part of 1.9.x history, my eyes would be much
> happier. That's it.
>

I'm lost, can you describe that shorter please?

>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Peter
>
>
>
>>
>> (3) While I agree that the linking between git history and Jira is
>> useful, saying that every commit needs a Jira does not sound reasonable.
>> There certainly are commits that do not deserve a Jira, such as:
>> * upgrades of dependencies
>> * refactorings
>> * various formatting and license header fixes
>> I hope most of you will agree here.
>>
>
> I disagree, I want a complete record of what's been done in JIRA.
> Upgrading of dependencies should not just be done randomly. It has a
> reasoning behind it (for example a security fix, or to re-allign with WF
> dependencies, or whatever) without a JIRA you don't have that. Same goes
> for refactoring, they either should be done as part of an existing JIRA or
> there should be a JIRA describing why it was done. The work has to be
> scheduled the same as all other work.
>
> For minor documentation updates (grammar, spelling fixes, etc.) or minor
> pure formatting sure they don't need a JIRA.
>
> All rules come with exceptions, that's just the way of life. However, by
> defacto all commits should have an associated JIRA. That's even more
> important for external contributions.
>
>
>>
>> (4) Pro tip for Chrome users:
>> I created a content script that makes Jiras and BZs on GitHub clickable
>> links. This is what it looks like: <http://snag.gy/rq6Ja.jpg>
>> http://snag.gy/rq6Ja.jpg How to install: https://goo.gl/bYUbHS
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 2016-03-10 19:12, John Dennis wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/10/2016 01:03 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a way to automatically squash everything to your latest
>>>> commit?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe not automatically, but the conventional way to squash commits is
>>> with interactive rebase, e.g.
>>>
>>> % git rebase -i commit
>>>
>>> where commit is the commit id of the *prior* commit you want to start
>>> the squashing from. Git will fire up your defined editor and you just
>>> replace the pick keyword with the squash keyword for each commit to be
>>> squashed. Many examples on the web. It's not automatic but usually less
>>> than a minute from start to finish.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160311/3b098950/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: iffagdhf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20564 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160311/3b098950/attachment-0004.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icddedjg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 30074 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160311/3b098950/attachment-0005.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: egdifcbj.png
Type: image/png
Size: 102619 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160311/3b098950/attachment-0006.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ehadefhf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 30771 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160311/3b098950/attachment-0007.png 