Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

meta: note re author check in COLLABORATOR_GUIDE #16360

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

meta: note re author check in COLLABORATOR_GUIDE #16360

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

vsemozhetbyt
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)

doc, meta

I still feel uneasy about this incident (see also #16339 (comment): the author still is not promoted), so I am trying to add a note for a lander side as well, something like the #16340 has done for the authors' side. I hope this is not an overcaution.

Please, correct my wording if necessary.

I wish I had compared this data yesterday:

1

2

I am sorry, @hyades.

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Oct 21, 2017
@vsemozhetbyt vsemozhetbyt added the meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. label Oct 21, 2017
associated with the author's account and the first-time contributor
will not be promoted to Contributor once their first commit is landed.
If in doubt, please contact the author before landing, then abort and reapply
the patch if the author have changed their username and email
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

have --> has

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done. Thank you.

If you land a somebody else's PR (especially a first-time contributor's PR),
please make sure that a username and an email in the log match the ones
in the author's GitHub account. Otherwise, the commits will not be properly
associated with the author's account and the first-time contributor
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should there be a comma after author's account?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

Copy link
Contributor

@maclover7 maclover7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not a collaborator, but 👍

@lpinca
Copy link
Member

lpinca commented Oct 21, 2017

This adds yet another thing to address to our already complex landing procedure. I understand the importance but I think it should be Collaborator's responsibility not our.

Checking every single first time contributor account seems a bit too much. Also if the email is private, how do you know if it matches the one in the patch?

@apapirovski
Copy link
Member

FWIW I think it's possible to check this simply within the PR by going to commits and seeing if their name is linked or not. This check could be a part of reviewing PRs from first-time contributors.

@vsemozhetbyt
Copy link
Contributor Author

vsemozhetbyt commented Oct 21, 2017

@lpinca

Also if the email is private, how do you know if it matches with the one in the patch?

Well, for this case I've added a suggestion to contact the author.

As I said, I am not sure if this is not an overcaution. If this is considered a tangible burden, then I will close the PR.

@vsemozhetbyt
Copy link
Contributor Author

vsemozhetbyt commented Oct 21, 2017

@apapirovski Can you suggest the place and the wording for this variant? Or maybe you can open a new PR, then I will close this one in favor of yours. I am still not very good at long English texts.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

I think a better way to avoid this kind of incidents is via automation. Probably can update node-review to do some checks (I have a rough idea, but need another sample to test).

@apapirovski
Copy link
Member

@vsemozhetbyt I think we can keep this open, maybe a few more people will chime in with different suggestions.

And I agree re: automation. Either node-review could do it (does everyone use it though?) or — and I don't know how our bot works so take this with a grain of salt — it's probably something that a bot could be made to do.

@vsemozhetbyt
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @evanlucas re node-review (and core-validate-commit ?) and @nodejs/github-bot re github-bot

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

joyeecheung commented Oct 21, 2017

Wait, I found an example (and oops, I landed that). I think it is simpler than I thought.

screen shot 2017-10-21 at 10 27 52 pm

Just look at the icons, they don't match. I think we don't really need automation to identify this.

@apapirovski
Copy link
Member

apapirovski commented Oct 21, 2017

Just look at the icons, they don't match. I think we don't really need automation to identify this.

And yet we miss it all the time. :( Part of it is that in the PR above there are 4 commits and so it's a lot more obvious, but it's very easy to miss it when it's just one commit.

I think having a label and an automated comment from a bot would go a long way towards not having any commits land with the wrong email. I'll have a look at the bot this weekend to see if this is possible and if so, how much effort it would take.

And in all honesty, the more we automate, the less pressure there is on collaborators to get everything just right.

@@ -452,6 +452,15 @@ Check number of commits and commit messages
$ git log upstream/master...master
```

If you land a somebody else's PR (especially a first-time contributor's PR),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

land a somebody else's -> land somebody else's

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

And in all honesty, the more we automate, the less pressure there is on collaborators to get everything just right.

Totally +1 @apapirovski intersted in nodejs/TSC#392 ? :D

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Oct 22, 2017

I think this is fine as long as we understand that people are going to forget this until we automate it. We ask collaborators to check approvals, check CI was run, and to check core-validate-commit passes. That's already fairly complex, so anything more has to be secondary.

I also emailed Github Support about the problem, hopefully they can do something that improves the situation.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

joyeecheung commented Oct 22, 2017

FWIW, I am playing with the Github GraphQL API today and looks like this is what the entry authoredByCommitter is for

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Oct 22, 2017

I also emailed Github Support about the problem, hopefully they can do something that improves the situation.

GitHub said they'd look into it, but the two cases linked here (#16339 (comment) and #15976 (comment)) are already updated (since 5 hours ago). So it sounds like it's not the end of the world if we don't catch this before landing.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Oct 22, 2017

Does adding the email to .mailmap help?

@vsemozhetbyt
Copy link
Contributor Author

So maybe we can leave this PR open for a while as a reminder, till we try to automate this or fall back on a document solution with a consensus.

@vsemozhetbyt vsemozhetbyt added the discuss Issues opened for discussions and feedbacks. label Oct 23, 2017
@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

Hey, we just implemented this check in get-metadata https://github.com/joyeecheung/node-core-utils/pull/21 , still have a few todos (e.g. incorporate .mailmap) but would love to see people give it a try and see if there are any edge cases that this tool does not cover.

@vsemozhetbyt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing for now as nodejs/automation is evolving inspiringly.

@vsemozhetbyt vsemozhetbyt deleted the doc-check-author branch November 3, 2017 23:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discuss Issues opened for discussions and feedbacks. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants