cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <>
Subject Re: Github pull requests
Date Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:48:01 GMT
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

> 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
> they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close them. That’s really

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.


> -- 
> 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.  

View raw message