[yt-dev] proposed change to development process
Kacper Kowalik
xarthisius.kk at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 09:26:18 PDT 2015
On 09/11/2015 10:29 AM, Matthew Turk wrote:
> Hi Britton,
>
> I've thought through a bit more, and I'm coming around to having multiple
> heads. If each one had a feature name, and we didn't get too many (i.e., a
> h-yt-dra haha) then perhaps this would be a fine situation. Avoiding PRs
> between repos means consolidating code review, which is a positive thing,
> as well. By focusing on *features* rather than the blanked "experimental"
> we would be in a better situation to deal with situations like this, we
> could still do feature work, and also preserve stability.
Hi all,
is there something we could do code-wise to make such workflow more
user-friendly? What are the main "pain" points?
The idea of cursed-based UI for issuing / viewing / editting PRs has
been on my mind for quite sometime, but I haven't had enough motivation
to do it...
One semi-related thing I'd like to mention/remind of: there's no need
for making "fork of forks" of yt repo. Assuming you want to
collaborately work on already issued PR, you can easily pull it:
hg bbprs -p PRNUMBER
Then add your changes and issue PR with them back to somebody's fork:
hg bbnewpr -t "PR title" -d "PR description" -r tip -n somebody/yt
All this ^^ and other goodies are available in hgbb[1]
Cheers,
Kacper
[1] https://bitbucket.org/MatthewTurk/hgbb
> -Matt
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I had some ideas for improving the yt development process that I
>> wanted to run by everyone. This can be discussed further at our
>> upcoming team meeting and if people are in favor, I will issue a pull
>> request to the relevant YTEP.
>>
>> STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
>> Currently, development proceeds roughly as follows. The two main
>> active branches within the central yt repository are *yt* and *stable*.
>> The tip of *stable* is the latest release and the *yt* branch is the de
>> facto "development version" of the code. Until recently, we have not
>> been very good at regularly scheduled minor releases and so the *stable*
>> branch sits for quite some time with many bugs that are fixed within
>> the development branch. This effectively makes *stable* unusable and
>> pushes most users to the *yt* branch.
>>
>> When new features are developed, pull requests are issued to the
>> single head of the *yt* branch. Because this is the version most people
>> are actually using, the current policy is to not allow PR with new
>> functionality to be accepted until they are 100% ready (full
>> functionality, tests, docs, etc). As we have already seen, this makes
>> collaborative development very cumbersome, as it requires people to
>> create forks of the fork from which the PR originates. They then must
>> issue PRs to that fork after which time the original PR is updated.
>> The current volume render refactor is the perfect example of this.
>>
>> PROPOSED SOLUTION
>> Before I lay out the proposed solution, I want to list a number of
>> recent developments that I think will make this possible:
>> 1. Nathan's new script for backporting changes now keeps *stable* and *yt*
>> synced on bugfixes.
>> 2. We have returned to doing minor releases containing only bugfixes,
>> thanks again to Nathan's hard work. This and point 1 means that
>> users are once again safe to be on *stable*, and now *should* be there
>> most of the time.
>> 3. Bitbucket now supports bookmarks, meaning that PRs can be issued to
>> specific bookmarks instead of to branches or heads named only by the
>> changeset hash.
>> 4. The weekly PR triage hangouts are making it easier to process PRs
>> and also providing a place to strategize getting larger PRs
>> accepted. Thanks to Hilary for keeping this going.
>>
>> With the above in mind, I propose the following:
>> 1. Create a "development" bookmark to sit at the tip of the *yt*
>> branch. All PRs containing relatively small new features are
>> issued to this. The requirements for acceptance remain the same:
>> PRs accepted to "development" must contain all intended
>> functionality and be fully documented. This allows the
>> "development" bookmark to be defined explicitly as everything that
>> will be included in the next major release.
>> 2. Large new features should have a corresponding YTEP that has been
>> accepted. After the YTEP has been accepted, a PR should be issued
>> to the *yt* branch. After some initial discussion, this PR is pulled
>> into the main yt repo with a bookmark named after the feature.
>> Once this has happened, developers can now issue new PRs
>> specifically to this bookmark. This is effectively what we have
>> now with the volume render work in the "experimental" bookmark,
>> only we would rename the bookmark to something like "vr-refactor".
>> As with PRs issued directly to "development", only after the new
>> feature is 100% ready shall it be merged into the "development"
>> bookmark.
>> 3. We continue to make use of the PR triage hangouts to establish when
>> large features are ready to be merged.
>>
>> I believe this will have the following benefits:
>> 1. Large, new features can be developed collaboratively without the
>> need for forks of forks of forks.
>> 2. New, underdevelopment features are more accessible to the larger
>> community by simply updating to named bookmarks from the main repo
>> (no need for "just pull these changes from my fork").
>> 3. The "development" branch is preserved as a place only for
>> ready-to-be-released features (i.e., polished and documented).
>>
>>
>> All told, this is really just a small tweak on our current process.
>> Please comment with any thoughts, or even a +/-1 if your feelings can
>> be summed up thusly.
>>
>> Britton
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20150911/d8644522/attachment.pgp>
More information about the yt-dev
mailing list