cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Github pull requests
Date Fri, 26 Aug 2016 18:07:45 GMT
It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the barrier
to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)

+1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:

> On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> > Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration
> that Spark has, formal or otherwise.
>
> If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to
> infra.
>
> > 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.
>
> No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This
> is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at. You
> can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks up.
>
> Mark
>
>
> >
> > --
> > AY
> >
> > On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (markt@apache.org) 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. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> >
> >
>
>

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