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

[JEP-234] Customizable header proposal #380

Merged
merged 26 commits into from
Nov 23, 2021

Conversation

imonteroperez
Copy link
Contributor

@imonteroperez imonteroperez commented Nov 11, 2021

Highlights

  • Make sure you are opening from a topic/feature/bugfix branch (right side) and not your main branch!
  • Ensure that the pull request title represents the desired changelog entry
  • Please describe what you did
  • Link to relevant issues in GitHub or Jira
  • Link to relevant pull requests, esp. upstream and downstream changes

@imonteroperez imonteroperez requested a review from a team as a code owner November 11, 2021 11:27
Copy link
Member

@oleg-nenashev oleg-nenashev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @imonteroperez ! I am not sure why this particular change requires a JEP. I am not against it. I am requesting changes because of the incorrectly pre-assigned JEP number. With the current numeration strategy it should be rather JEP-234

jep/401/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@imonteroperez imonteroperez marked this pull request as draft November 11, 2021 12:33
@imonteroperez imonteroperez changed the title [JEP-401] Customizable header proposal [JEP-234] Customizable header proposal Nov 11, 2021
@imonteroperez
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @imonteroperez ! I am not sure why this particular change requires a JEP. I am not against it. I am requesting changes because of the incorrectly pre-assigned JEP number. With the current numeration strategy it should be rather JEP-234

Thanks for heads up on numeration! Updated in 781a489

@batmat
Copy link
Member

batmat commented Nov 12, 2021

A note on the process: as mentioned in JEP-1 linked from the README, PR normally don't set JEP numbers. This number gets chosen when the PR gets merged.

When they are done, the Draft JEP will have an official JEP number and the submission PR will have been merged to a matching folder (for example, jep/1) in the master branch.

Given Oleg's answer, I assume we can keep 234, but let's remember for next time :)

Copy link
Member

@batmat batmat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall LGTM. Many wordsmithing suggestions and a few bigger changes proposed.

But again, nothing blocking I could see on the design side of the subject. (hence my approval)

jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@amuniz amuniz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good.

@jglick
Copy link
Member

jglick commented Nov 15, 2021

I assume we can keep 234

Better to use 0000 as directed by JEP-1 and assumed by #376.

jep/234/README.adoc Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Jesse Glick <jglick@cloudbees.com>
jep/234/README.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
imonteroperez and others added 2 commits November 22, 2021 09:20
Co-authored-by: Mark Waite <mark.earl.waite@gmail.com>
Copy link
Member

@oleg-nenashev oleg-nenashev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will go ahead and merge it

@batmat
Copy link
Member

batmat commented Nov 22, 2021

Thank you Oleg!

@batmat batmat requested a review from timja November 23, 2021 10:53
@batmat
Copy link
Member

batmat commented Nov 23, 2021

@oleg-nenashev @jenkinsci/jep-editors can we merge this PR and assign it an official number pretty please? This is ready for merge FWICT, and this is somehow blocking jenkinsci/jenkins#5909 merge (which is ready too).

And it would be cleaner to merge first the JEP before the reference implementation, hence my request here :-).

Thanks!

@batmat batmat requested a review from a team November 23, 2021 11:23
@oleg-nenashev
Copy link
Member

oleg-nenashev commented Nov 23, 2021 via email

@oleg-nenashev
Copy link
Member

oleg-nenashev commented Nov 23, 2021 via email

@batmat batmat requested a review from jglick November 23, 2021 11:42
@batmat
Copy link
Member

batmat commented Nov 23, 2021

@MarkEWaite are you able to do the landing of this PR as a draft JEP? Oleg agrees with the content AFAIK, but would welcome some help on the process if we can.

@MarkEWaite
Copy link
Contributor

I'm happy to do the merge @oleg-nenashev if you're willing to "check my work" that I didn't make some obvious mistake. I believe the merge steps are:

  • Create a commit that assigns JEP-234 to this PR (as was done for another JEP in c691756)
  • Create a commit that adds JEP-234 to top level README (as was done for another JEP in 42bf67e)
  • Merge the branch to master

@timja
Copy link
Member

timja commented Nov 23, 2021

@MarkEWaite
There's a script:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/1#approve-as-draft

Probably should be more discoverable than buried in that monster though

MarkEWaite added a commit to MarkEWaite/jep that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2021
@MarkEWaite
Copy link
Contributor

There's a script: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/1#approve-as-draft

Thanks for that pointer! I adjusted the results slightly (leaving the delegate status as TBD instead of using the value 'not delegated' that was set by the script. If that was a mistake, we can correct it with another pull request.

@MarkEWaite MarkEWaite closed this Nov 23, 2021
@MarkEWaite
Copy link
Contributor

MarkEWaite commented Nov 23, 2021

This pull request was merged by following the script. After merging it from the command line, the pull request was still open, so I closed it. In the future, I may use the gh pr merge command so that the pull request will be listed by GitHub as "merged" instead of "closed"

@timja
Copy link
Member

timja commented Nov 23, 2021

Looks like its only on your repo atm @MarkEWaite

https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep

@jglick
Copy link
Member

jglick commented Nov 23, 2021

The script may need to be adjusted depending on how you name your remotes—I use origin for the @jenkinsci version and fork for my @jglick copy, but there is no standard.

@jglick
Copy link
Member

jglick commented Nov 23, 2021

And yes if the script is used correctly, the final git push will automatically result in the PR being considered merged, because GitHub will detect that the PR branch head is now an ancestor of the base branch head.

@MarkEWaite
Copy link
Contributor

I missed the push to upstream. I use an inverted naming convention compared to @jglick. Merging now with the GitHub merge pull request button

@MarkEWaite MarkEWaite merged commit ee599b9 into jenkinsci:master Nov 23, 2021
@jglick
Copy link
Member

jglick commented Nov 23, 2021

Merging now with the GitHub merge pull request button

Also not what the recommended script calls for. It looks like you did some commits by hand to set the number and so on which the proposed script handles a bit differently. Should not matter now, just FYI for next time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants