MOSS Bitbucket Pull Requests

Discussions About MOSS (Myst Online Server Software)

Moderator: a'moaca'

Post Reply
User avatar
JWPlatt
Member
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Everywhere, all at once

MOSS Bitbucket Pull Requests

Post by JWPlatt » Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:53 pm

I'm not sure if this thread will be useful, but I think it would be good to keep info flowing about our offsite repo mirroring.

Christian Walther submitted a pull request from his MOSS fork on Bitbucket. It has been reviewed and merged via Bitbucket.

https://bitbucket.org/OpenUru_org/moss/ ... s-inverted

The merge should show up on Foundry later today, but it's already available on Bitbucket.
Perfect speed is being there.

Christian Walther
Member
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:54 am

Re: MOSS Bitbucket Pull Requests

Post by Christian Walther » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:36 am

You mean as a substitute for the apparently missing discussion functionality on pull requests on Bitbucket? Sounds good to me. Although it’s probably rather confusing to have the discussion both on JIRA and here on the forum – one of the two should be sufficient.

User avatar
JWPlatt
Member
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Everywhere, all at once

Re: MOSS Bitbucket Pull Requests

Post by JWPlatt » Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:47 pm

To address Christian's concern, Bitbucket now provides for discussion of changesets (and supports Git).

Filbert_holmer/lawrence submitted a pull request from his fork of the Bitbucket MOSS mirror repo. To anyone interested and qualified, please use the new Bitbucket changeset comment feature to review the changes.

If an issue is filed with JIRA (either by Filbert_holmer or anyone) on Foundry, just like any bug report, we will have a complete set of documentation from the description of the cause to the fix, with references from either the Bitbucket comments or the Foundry Fisheye/Crucible reviews.

Bitbucket Pull Request: https://bitbucket.org/OpenUru_org/moss/ ... ake-mbampl

Also, if you'd like to see and review the patch in FishEye/Crucible on Foundry, anyone can join:
http://foundry.openuru.org/fisheye/cru/MOSS-1#CFR-57
Perfect speed is being there.

User avatar
JWPlatt
Member
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Everywhere, all at once

Re: MOSS Bitbucket Pull Requests

Post by JWPlatt » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:20 am

FYI - Filbert Holmer's pull request was accepted today and appears on the Bitbucket MOSS repo. It will sync with Foundry tonight at 3 AM Mountain US.
Perfect speed is being there.

Christian Walther
Member
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:54 am

Re: MOSS Bitbucket Pull Requests

Post by Christian Walther » Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:02 pm

Cool! A little feedback on how I think this was handled:

I’m glad Filbert wasn’t scared away by the big review machinery you set in motion. At one point I almost felt sorry for having suggested sending pull requests to him. :) I was expecting his contributions to be accepted as easily as mine (pull request #1) or as things usually are in open-source projects. I fear this level of scrutiny is counter-productive.

Having things in three places (Bitbucket pull request, Crucible, JIRA) seems unnecessarily complex – for contributions as trivial as these, I would have stuck to Bitbucket alone. Crucible’s features are cool and probably useful for larger contributions, particularly as far as unavailable on Bitbucket (e.g. comments on code lines), but its formality (having to join as a reviever, being tracked in percentage done and time spent) just makes things feel like work.

The improvement suggestions by rarified, while certainly well-meant, also have the potential to drive away contributors, I fear. The reaction may be, “hey, if they can do it so much better than I, why don’t they just do it themselves, I won’t be bothering them anymore”. I think the criterion should be: if it’s an improvement over the previous state, accept it. Even if it can easily be improved even more. Don’t put the burden of the further improvement on the contributor, but do it yourself after having accepted the contribution. (I don’t think it was rarified’s intention to put the burden on the contributor – nobody ever said the contribution wouldn’t be accepted unless the improvements were made – but it may have been interpreted that way.)

User avatar
JWPlatt
Member
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Everywhere, all at once

Re: MOSS Bitbucket Pull Requests

Post by JWPlatt » Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:39 pm

Thanks for taking the time to comment, Christian. Excellent. We were hoping for feedback like yours. The Crucible review was a test, not a requirement. We may do additional testing in parallel to Bitbucket, as may others on their own, but it is optional.
Christian Walther, Wed Jun 22, 2011 wrote:...you can’t comment on a commit or on a diff hunk as you can on GitHub.
Now you can comment on a pull requests.
Christian Walther, Fri Oct 07, 2011 wrote:...unavailable on Bitbucket (e.g. comments on code lines)...
And I think your complaints about Bitbucket will dwindle further to null as they improve their service under Atlassian ownership. ;) Bitbucket has said their recent implementation of comments will enable development of inline comments. They now also support Git.
Perfect speed is being there.

User avatar
rarified
Member
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:48 pm
Location: Colorado, US

Re: MOSS Bitbucket Pull Requests

Post by rarified » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:08 am

Let me second JW's appreciation for the feedback. As he alluded, this effort was only exploring what possibilities there are in the processes, not a final choice. And you are correct in your assumption that I wasn't going to object if Filbert didn't add any of the suggestions (if you can dig up the pull request comments from BitBucket you can see that from how I phrased my question to him if he was ready to be pulled).

But I also did want him and anyone else observing to see that we do take an interest in the code (including reading it) that comes back into the OpenUru repositories. I really do want to make the end result as good as it can possibly be. I didn't approach this task as a way to make any kind of statement, but rather to ask questions that may not have been asked before, and to demonstrate constructive interest. In this case I thought it helpful to provide examples, which are a concise way to describe a condition. Hopefully they were received as helpful, but if not, I hope Filbert will let me know and I'll refrain from doing it again.

I expect there will be discussion of topics such as if "It was important to attach a comment to a (file, line of code, pull request, etc)" or "Who cares if there is a bug or issue associated with the change?" We then can try variations on the process to try to address what seems important, and weed out what seems not so important.

_R
One of the OpenUru toolsmiths... a bookbinder.

Post Reply

Return to “MOSS”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest