kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Allowing write access to GitHub repositories
Date Mon, 11 Dec 2017 06:14:07 GMT
Thanks Guozhang.

Cherry-picking also occurred to me sometime after I sent the email and I
agree that it's useful functionality.

Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting a script for
cherry-picking after the pull request has been merged? We could explore
this, but not sure it would add much over plain `git cherry-pick` for
typical AK usage. Given that, I am tempted to just allow both the current
merge script and the GitHub UI to be used. And after a period of a few
weeks/months, we can look at improvements based on actual experience. How
does that sound?

Ismael

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Ismael for initiating this discussion. I am in favor for adopting
> Gitbox for its clean improvements since many of us have shared the pain of
> managing PRs for long time.
>
> About this potential downsides, subjectively I feel these two arguments are
> quite handle-able. The only concern I had about cherry-picking to other
> branches, which is a very common usage of the script tool we used today. So
> I'd suggest simplifying that script to help with cherry-picking (currently
> we only do up-stream cherry-picking, but we could also consider allow both
> upstream and downstream cherry-picking) than completely discard it.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > One thing I forgot to mention, many projects have requested and been
> using
> > GitBox for a while:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15271?jql=
> > project%20%3D%20INFRA%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%
> > 20Closed)%20AND%20component%20%3D%20GitBox%20ORDER%20BY%
> > 20updated%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The Apache Infra team has started a new project earlier this year
> called
> > > GitBox that supports two-way synchronization between GitHub and
> > > git-wip-us.apache.org and, most importantly, provides GitHub write
> > access
> > > to committers. GitBox is not generally available yet, but individual
> > > projects can ask to be migrated.
> > >
> > > I think we should migrate kafka and kafka-site to GitBox. The main
> > benefit
> > > is that pull request management will be hugely improved for committers:
> > >
> > > 1. Reviewers functionality will become available
> > >
> > > 2. Pull requests will be assignable to GitHub users
> > >
> > > 3. We will be able to assign labels to issues
> > >
> > > 4. We will be able to merge pull requests directly via GitHub instead
> of
> > > using the merge script
> > >
> > > 5. Committers will be able to close old and stale PRs
> > >
> > > 6. We will be able to use protected branches to restrict merges via
> > GitHub
> > > to only be allowed if tests pass and the PR has been approved by at
> least
> > > one committer
> > >
> > > A couple of potential downsides:
> > >
> > > 1. To avoid weird behaviour (even though two way synchronization
> exists),
> > > we'd want all committers to always push to GitHub, but this won't be
> > > enforced. That is, git-wip-us.apache.org will still be writable. Given
> > > the small number of active committers, this seems to be a minor issue.
> > >
> > > 2. If we decide to drop the merge script in favour of GitHub, some of
> the
> > > functionality will have to be done manually. GitHub supports "squash
> and
> > > merge" via the UI, so the main things that will have to be done
> manually
> > > are (1) Ensuring that the commit message follows the right format (2)
> > Close
> > > the JIRA ticket. I think this is OK, but we could allow both options
> > (merge
> > > and GitHub UI). If we want to allow both options, we'd just change the
> > > default push repository in the script to be GitHub.
> > >
> > > All in all, I think this is a clear improvement and fixes a lot of the
> > > pull request management pain points we've been facing. Given that, I'd
> > like
> > > to move quickly, if possible.
> > >
> > > Please share your thoughts below and if people are in favour, I'll
> start
> > a
> > > vote.
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>

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