cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Beck <>
Subject Re: Github pull requests
Date Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:13:32 GMT
I would love to be able to send PRs, there have a been a few minor
improvements I wanted to submit that are sitting in local branches for me
for when I have time to really learn how to submit a patch where PRs are
much more approachable now.


On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:11 AM Aleksey Yeschenko <>

> Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration that
> Spark has, formal or otherwise.
> As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any
> control over Cassandra Github mirror.
> Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the erroneously
> opened PRs ourselves,
> they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close them.
> That’s really frustrating.
> --
> AY
> On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas ( wrote:
> On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
> creating
> > a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> > intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes
> > in Jira.
> >
> > But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github
> > pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github
> > the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> > around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.)
> >
> > Should we revisit our policy here?
> At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a
> mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.
> Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub
> config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy
> held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.
> As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend
> that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project
> makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be
> said for other processes as well like Jira config.)
> It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent
> to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.
> Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they may
> ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than
> anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.
> My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place
> than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than
> technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.
> Mark
> >
> > [1] e.g.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message