Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E11F518202 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7724 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2015 07:38:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 7653 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2015 07:38:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 7637 invoked by uid 99); 30 Oct 2015 07:38:19 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:38:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 2DD5C1809A7 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:38:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.9 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V6dnLoBiSVJF for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:38:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 9575720751 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:38:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbjm5 with SMTP id m5so44618922lbj.3 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:38:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=L3LNp8jOd+urrfiPOrXx+aNEzlE2LnZC9Yu4VrfYXLg=; b=MBzEniqGSrCLXdcoLzVqUkCDG4WgO8QufSm+6Rq32hwWUboA6pb3jx/SCGwQ3sYiqP RfuMJAq2dOyGy7ZAfu4bLS7wTOC4K/OnsvGUs2S9R2kZk5pVKL28w5HD2BY6aIuRe5Q8 sbJFbUdXNadDDlNUwW43T/OZ7MwFLZG792WiqXDUFwLC8V92CNd78AtEdSW5LqRbz5Oi +TLJiL0ylXYLAMq1HVoUQAuRY24xgKrbMZ7NXBZYhmunUFFxte7ptzpXZUhf5OO80wdD ZM5rRdIImnyEdRx9r/S3HcKCKtln2kfSIrwisR8NoURNh5whjp7MYXrUCtomUGBOLVSQ TKZQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.158.98 with SMTP id wt2mr3236597lbb.33.1446190688086; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.24.33 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.24.33 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:38:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <19E3715B-5663-469B-87A1-153E7B24A5E7@hortonworks.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:38:07 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Github integration for Hadoop From: Alexander Pivovarov To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c343843db2b105234d82f3 --001a11c343843db2b105234d82f3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Andrew, look at Spark github. They use PRs and I do not see extra merge commits. Committer can do fast-farward merge using git command line. PRs are used to leave inline feedbacks for the fix On Oct 29, 2015 1:34 PM, "Andrew Wang" wrote: > Has anything changed regarding the github integration since the last time > we discussed this? That blog post is from 2014, and we discussed > alternative review systems earlier in 2015. > > Colin specifically was concerned about forking the discussion between JIRA > and other places: > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uOzYtkYxo4qazi&subj=Re+Patch+review+process > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uOzYtSz7z624qazi&subj=Re+Patch+review+process > > There are also questions about PRs leading to messy commit history with the > extra merge commits. Spark IIRC has something to linearize it again, which > seems important if we actually want to do this. > > Could someone outline the upsides of using github? I don't find the review > UI particularly great compared to Gerrit or even RB, and there's the merge > commit issue. For instance, do we think using Github would lead to more > contributions? Improved developer workflows? Have we re-examined > alternatives like Gerrit or RB as well? > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Arpit Agarwal > wrote: > > > +1, thanks for proposing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/29/15, 10:47 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote: > > > > >All, > > > For code & patch review, many of the newer projects are using the > > Github > > >pull request integration. You can read about it here: > > > > > > > > > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and > > > > > >It basically lets you: > > >* have mirroring between comments on pull requests and jira > > >* lets you close pull requests > > >* have mirroring between pull request comments and the Apache mail lists > > > > > >Thoughts? > > >.. Owen > > > --001a11c343843db2b105234d82f3--