incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ignasi Barrera <n...@apache.org>
Subject Re: best development methodology for Apache git?
Date Tue, 04 Feb 2014 07:13:13 GMT
Just wanted to point out that in jclouds we only use GitHub for the code
reviews. We don't follow the entire pull request workflow and we actually
use the ASF repos as our primary source of code.

Contributors submit pull requests and code review happen in GitHub. Once
the patch is ready to be merged, the commiters push it to the ASF git repo.
We never push code anywhere but the ASF repos. Changes to the GitHub ones
get there only when mirrored by the mirror jobs.

Just wanted to clarify this, as I think this approach doesn't introduce
overhead to commiters/contributors and respects the ASF workflow. GitHub is
just the place where code reviews happen, and all the code is always pushed
to the ASF repos; they are the only source of truth and we only work
directly with them.

Ignasi
El 03/02/2014 19:34, "Andrew Purtell" <apurtell@apache.org> escribió:

> On the question of tooling, that brings us back to James' inquiry about
> having infrastructure that can emulate the GitHub pull request workflow in
> house:
>
> > Something like the Github model that combines a) the ability for managing
> branches and visually reviewing patches and b) a means to gate commits
> against the single source of truth, the git repo. Gerrit meets this
> requirement and based on INFRA-2205 used to be setup.
>
> What Gerritt and GitHub pull requests have in common is contributors submit
> change requests as pushes of a new branch to a git remote (quite convenient
> and natural for a developer using git already locally), this branch can be
> updated incrementally during the review process, and there is a nice GUI
> for line by line code inspection, comment, and discussion, including email
> integration. (James' point "a")
>
> Gerritt can also support workflows where human reviewers and a QA bot can
> collaborate to gate the commit of a change candidate, where the actual
> commit to the project master branch is done by the review tool after
> established process requirements are all met. The Phoenix guys have
> indicated this idea is attractive to them. (James' point "b")
>
>
> On Monday, February 3, 2014, Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey Sergio
> > The Apache mirrors on Github are by request and run off from
> > git.apache.org.
> > Anyone wanting to have a svn or git project mirrored needs to submit an
> > infra ticket and it can get setup.
> >
> > As for the Github workflows that are starting to be used, I am not a
> > proponent of them. These workflows are not ideal as they repositories are
> > not under any Asf control and infra can not help if there are any issues,
> > its up to the project to take care of its own. Also with the JClouds and
> > now Usergrid projects using this flow adds a lot of overhead for
> > initial contributions as they have in the workflow the requirement to
> > ensure an ICLA are on file for the contributor. Most committers do not
> have
> > access to see the status of this. Also since these projects are not
> working
> > directly against the primary repository it is up to them to ensure that
> > committers are the only ones submitting code to the primary repository
> and
> > then syncing that code at some point over to the ASF repositories in
> order
> > to make a release.
> >
> > If we are not providing the right tooling for projects and they are
> seeking
> > outside means then I would love to work and help make the correct tools
> > available to make workflows easier and ensure security and policies are
> > being met.
> >
> > -Jake
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Sergio Fernández <
> > sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 03/02/14 10:42, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:47 PM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> The Phoenix project has recently come into incubation from it's
> former
> > >>> life
> > >>> as a Github project. I believe other projects have made this same
> > >>> transition, so I'm looking to get some advice from them...
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> CouchDB has documented their Git workflow at
> > >> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/ContributorWorkflow
> > >>
> > >
> > > In Marmotta we adopted a Gitflow as workflow, you can find the
> > > documentation at the web site:
> > >
> > > http://marmotta.apache.org/development.html#Source_code
> > >
> > > But we'd be really interested on extend that to github-like pull
> > requests,
> > > in order to make easier to get contributions from new people. I think
> > > that's what James is asking, and what jclouds has implemented somehow.
> > But
> > > I miss some more details to actually know how they do it, specially
> > taking
> > > into account that many repos at github are not properly synced.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sergio Fernández
> > > Senior Researcher
> > > Knowledge and Media Technologies
> > > Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
> > > Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria
> > > T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925
> > > sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at <javascript:;>
> > > http://www.salzburgresearch.at
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

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