[wildfly-dev] Policies for merging PRs on master

[Brian Stansberry]

Sorry, I dropped the list on my last post; see below...

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Brian Stansberry <
brian.stansberry at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Brian Stansberry <
>> brian.stansberry at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Great. :)
>>>
>>> One thing I think we need to do is figure out how to get custom TCK runs
>>> for PR branches. The TCK is a big part of our test coverage, and one way to
>>> not "use master as a test bed" is to get a check of a branch on the TCK
>>> before we merge it.
>>>
>>> I know we've gotten TCK runs of ad-hoc branches before, so by "figure
>>> out" I mean work out how to make that not overly painful, come to some sort
>>> of consensus on when it's worthwhile, etc.
>>>
>>
>> I think if we were going to do this it should probably be something
>> reviewers can ask for on specific PR. The TCK uses a *lot* more resources
>> than a standard CI run, so we need to make sure we limit it to cases where
>> it is required.
>>
>
> Yes, for sure we wouldn't want to do this broadly; submitters or reviewers
> should ask.
>
> I had in mind a fairly limited set of scenarios. Things like major/minor
> version bumps of the big EE components, or some large scale change with
> fairly clear TCK implications where we'd be reluctant to undo the change if
> it caused a problem. *Perhaps* core upgrades, as those somewhat amount to
> the latter. And then late in the cycle some last minute fixes where we
> sometimes ask for a custom run anyway.
>
> Doing custom runs doesn't buy much for small changes where if they fail
> TCK after merge we just revert them or we can spend a few days sorting the
> problem without stressing out.
>
>
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There you go... PR updated to consume the same api jar now released as
>>>> final.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Alessio
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > As suggested by Brian, I'd like to draw attention to the discussion
>>>>> on
>>>>> > https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/10604 .
>>>>> > The PR is an upgrade of the webservices stack, including JBossWS,
>>>>> Apache
>>>>> > CXF, JAXB-RI and JAXB API. In particular, the JAXB upgrade is for
>>>>> EE8 and
>>>>> > better JDK 9 compatibility.
>>>>> > Now, due to the upgrade of the JAXB API spec jar, the PR is
>>>>> essentially
>>>>> > stalled since 20 days; the new spec is released as an alpha (as it's
>>>>> been
>>>>> > tested within JBossWS only) and that does not satisfy a rule that
>>>>> requires
>>>>> > any artifact being pulled to be Final.
>>>>> > We're talking about a spec jar, we could simply re-tag that as Final,
>>>>> > chances are we won't need changes any time soon there anyway, but as
>>>>> Tomaz
>>>>> > pointed out, in principle that would be dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>> My opinion is that you should go ahead and make a .Final tag.  In the
>>>>> (unlikely?) event that the spec has to be modified for some reason, I
>>>>> think you could make a 1.0.1.Final tag and call it a "bug fix".
>>>>>
>>>>> The alternative is to simply wait.  I don't think there is any middle
>>>>> position.
>>>>>
>>>>> > While I see the point in requiring that only sufficiently stable
>>>>> upgrades
>>>>> > are applied to the codebase, I'm wondering whether, maybe, we're
>>>>> going a bit
>>>>> > too far with the rules. Brian wrote on this topic: "how to determine
>>>>> that
>>>>> > something is good enough to go in without using master as a test
>>>>> bed" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we are; I agree with the policy as it stands.  If you
>>>>> look at it in terms of being able to release at any time, then it
>>>>> follows that everything _must_ be stable.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - DML
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brian Stansberry
>>> Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
>>> Red Hat
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Brian Stansberry
> Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat
>



-- 
Brian Stansberry
Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/wildfly-dev/attachments/20171205/b331dc20/attachment-0001.html