sling-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chetan Mehrotra <>
Subject Re: Canonical URL for Git
Date Mon, 09 Oct 2017 17:58:21 GMT
I believe Github would provide more convenience and if dual system is
approved then we should use Github as the preferred master.
Chetan Mehrotra

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Robert Munteanu <> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 11:21 +0200, Konrad Windszus wrote:
>> > - account linking and personal access token generation are one-time
>> > actions that take little time to perform
>> right, but at least for the sling-site case committing to gitbox is
>> even less effort, because every committer already has HTTPS write
>> access to that repo. I had some troubles with the linking because it
>> seems that after enabling 2fa on Github there is a delay of up to 30
>> minutes until the daemon picks up the change on ASF side.
> Yes, that is documented at .
>> > - making github the preferred push repository makes me more
>> > confident
>> > that we won't have any conflicts due to merging pull requests
>> not sure how ASF gitbox and Github are syncing exactly and what
>> happens in case of conflicts. Do you have any source available which
>> explains the process more in detail? Also to me it is not clear which
>> URL to include there: SSH based or HTTPS based?
> Unfortunately no, that this is part of why I support one definite
> 'master' git repo to use.
> I would favour HTTPS as it's probably not filtered anywhere, whereas
> SSH is sometimes blocked by firewalls.
>> > - automation is more readily available with github rather than
>> > gitbox
>> > and we may choose to add more automation in the future
>> you are probably referring to the Github API for which there is no
>> alternative on the ASF side. I agree with that as well. Also having
>> SSH authentication available at Github is a big pro (but should not
>> be required for publishing the sling site though)
> Yes, agreed, we should not require SSH for publishing.
>> But please also consider the other points:
>> >
>> > Also, pushing to github is a supported setup, this was why we
>> > decided
>> > to go with gitbox in the first place [1]. Pushing to the ASF repos
>> > sort
>> > of defeats the purpose of that.
>> Don't agree with that. Pushing to ASF repos does not prevent anyone
>> from using the Github repos.
>> It is just less obvious that you can also use Github.
> That circles back to how stable we think the dual-master setup is. Yes,
> we can try and use gitbox as a canonical repository and use Github as a
> remote only when needed.
>> The main question to me is: how stable do we consider each of the two
>> repos?
>> IMHO the gitbox repo URL is much more stable as Github could
>> theoretically end at any point in time the collaboration with the ASF
>> and just would no longer provide that service for free. Modifying the
>> documentation and poms afterwards would be a big hassle.
>> I guess providing Maven artifacts not only via Maven Central but
>> primarily through the ASF dist server is a very similar requirement (
>> What do others think?
> My recollection is that the dual system is approved since a push to
> Github is automatically replicated to ASF servers - the source still
> lives on the ASF repos.
> -----
> Anyway, my understanding of what we aim to do might be wrong and since
> no one else seems to desire a canonical Github URL I'll switch the
> sling-site repo to publish via gitbox later today or early tomorrow.
> Robert

View raw message