| Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] 1000 line CQ limit - (revisited?) |
Jonah,
When the number was increased to 1,000 I had asked for 10,000, not actually expecting it to be increased to that number, but to push the upper limit as high as is reasonable. I could try again (as Committer Rep), but what is a reasonable bound?
I also found the message in Gerrit a bit confusing because I wanted to reply with a "No, a CQ is not needed because..." but I was just supposed to reply only for the case of "true"...
Here are some reasons why a large or even huge commit doesn't
need a CQ:
Generator-induced changes such as https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=563042 which results in 66,000+ lines of change is an extreme example of a small IP contribution leading to massive code changes. The effort to factor out NLS for Oomph via https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=562267 is a different example where I am doubtful there is actually any IP contribution though a great many lines of change.
The point is that no line scanner tool can ever determine which
changes are IP and which are not so no limit is actually going to
be definitely "correct". Reformatting a code base, for example,
is clearly not an IP change.
Regards,
Ed
The CQ poster says this:
"Is it less than 1,000 lines of code and configuration files and other source?"
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:53, Jonah Graham <jonah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This genie message added to gerrits - I don't think there is an equivalent for github?
This contribution is over 1000 lines of code and a CQ may be needed[1]. Project committers, please confirm if a CQ is needed by replying to this comment (in Gerrit), leaving the quote intact, and Genie will automagically create a CQ.
[1] https://eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf. -genie:cq The above gets answers like this: "@Torbjörn you need to either reduce the volume of this contribution or create a CQ for it"
and like this: "> @Alexander do we need a CQ for this one?
In it's current form - yes."
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:37, Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can you be specific? What Genie message?
And yes... defining it is challenging. But, we should try and be as helpful for committers as possible.
Wayne
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jonah Graham <jonah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wayne, I sent my reply before I saw your second email.
> FWIW, committers have some discretion with regard to what 1KLOC means [...]
Can we start by adding that to the CQ Genie message? Or is the problem defining it?
Jonah
_______________________________________________On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:18, Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The limit comes from the IP Advisory Committee (I think that the board of directors has some say in this).
So, to change this requirement, we would have to make an appeal to the IP Advisory Committee. i.e., describe why it's unnecessary.
In the meantime, please do not let contributors chop up their commits into arbitrary chunks to fit the limit. The requirement exists for a reason.
FWIW, committers have some discretion with regard to what 1KLOC means. What we're really looking for is contributions of significant new intellectual property. These significant contributions need to be reviewed (and tracked) by the IP team for licensing, provenance, and general shenanigans. I tend to think of it as 1KLOC of meaningful content and "really close" counts (e.g., a contribution of 1,100 lines that includes file headers and blank lines).
Wayne
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:36 PM Jonah Graham <jonah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi folks,_______________________________________________
I would like to discuss the 1000 line CQ limit and what it means in practice. I often see well intentioned committers asking contributors to reduce the size of their commits, or sometimes to split them up, so that each individual contribution is less than the magic number. In the distant past this number was much less than 1000.
This seems to be more of an issue in the gerrit world because there is a genie reminding users that a CQ is needed. In github hosted projects I can see little evidence of any code going through this process at all.
Can we revisit removing this requirement? Or better defining the 1000 line limit so that contributors aren't asked to adjust their coding simply based on this limit.
Thanks,
Jonah
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
--
_______________________________________________Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
--
_______________________________________________Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council
_______________________________________________ eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council