-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 98
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
Conversation
afbefd2
to
125bbd3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this 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
Thanks for heads up on numeration! Updated in 781a489 |
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.
Given Oleg's answer, I assume we can keep 234, but let's remember for next time :) |
There was a problem hiding this 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)
Co-authored-by: Baptiste Mathus <bmathus@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good.
Better to use |
Co-authored-by: Jesse Glick <jglick@cloudbees.com>
Co-authored-by: Mark Waite <mark.earl.waite@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this 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
Thank you Oleg! |
@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! |
Yes I'm about doing so. Was unable to do it yesterday due to yet another
family emergency.
…On Tue, 23 Nov 2021, 12:23 Baptiste Mathus, ***@***.***> wrote:
@batmat <https://github.com/batmat> requested review from
@jenkinsci/jep-editors on: #380
<#380> [JEP-234] Customizable header
proposal.
—
You are receiving this because your review was requested.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#380 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAW4RIAMJNJINP7KZNK7C63UNN2THANCNFSM5H2HI4UA>
.
|
Please note that there are at least four JEP editors employed by CloudBees
who could do such formalities. The companies will come out to participate
in the community governance
…On Tue, 23 Nov 2021, 12:24 Oleg Nenashev, ***@***.***> wrote:
Yes I'm about doing so. Was unable to do it yesterday due to yet another
family emergency.
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021, 12:23 Baptiste Mathus, ***@***.***>
wrote:
> @batmat <https://github.com/batmat> requested review from
> @jenkinsci/jep-editors on: #380
> <#380> [JEP-234] Customizable
> header proposal.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because your review was requested.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#380 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAW4RIAMJNJINP7KZNK7C63UNN2THANCNFSM5H2HI4UA>
> .
>
|
@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. |
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: |
@MarkEWaite Probably should be more discoverable than buried in that monster though |
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. |
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 |
Looks like its only on your repo atm @MarkEWaite |
The script may need to be adjusted depending on how you name your remotes—I use |
And yes if the script is used correctly, the final |
I missed the |
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. |
Highlights