streams-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suneel Marthi <suneel.mar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: {VOTE} move to gitbox
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2017 22:44:55 GMT
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:55 PM Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
>
> > On 2017-07-06 00:35, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2017-07-05 22:16, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2017-07-05 20:31, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Just this week, Apache OpenNLP moved all of their repos to gitbox.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Hmm, just checked their mailinglists and only found one single
> thread
> > >>>> voting
> > >>>> on that move, again without *any* context.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b2b7c066b79f1f13f733b9b
> > >>> 205c71c57e156a7577a14b7061cbc8610@%3Cdev.opennlp.apache.org%3E
> > >>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b2b7c066b79f1f13f733b9
> > >>> b205c71c57e156a7577a14b7061cbc8610@%3Cdev.opennlp.apache.org%3E>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Yes, that's the one single thread I could find.
> > >> But no argument or context there either.
> > >> Maybe everyone voting on this at openNLP already knows everything
> about
> > >> gitbox,
> > >> or they just voted blindly, hoping for the best?
> > >>
> > >> I'm happy to vote on this, but I'm still clueless for what.
> > >
> > >
> > > With the present setup (without gitbox): this is how u have to merge
> the
> > > PRs (the cumbersome, manual way) -
> > > http://mahout.apache.org/developers/github.html
> > >
> > > With gitbox setup, this is how u do it (the way its supposed to be, see
> > the
> > > section merging a Pull Request) -
> > http://opennlp.apache.org/using-git.html
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, that is helpful, even if IMO still very thin, too thin,
> > documentation.
> >
> > So I understand that with gitbox the (primary?) upstream repository to
> > push to
> > now is @github, no longer @apache. Or might this be both?
> >
> > However https://github.com/apache/opennlp still indicates it is mirrored
> > from
> > git://git.apache.org/opennlp.git.
> > Then are these now bidirectionally synchronized? If so, then how are
> > conflicts
> > resolved/prevented, shouldn't there some guidelines/rules for that?
> > Is it still allowed or even possible to push to the repository @apache?
> >
> > The OpenNLP website doesn't provide any help or explanation either,
> while I
> > think important usage rules like these need to be spelled out and
> > documented by
> > the project.
> >
> > Another question: will we (have to) stick to using JIRA for issue
> > tracking, or
> > with gitbox might github issue tracking be used as well?
> > Note: I think the latter to be not such a great idea.
> > Also: is it possible to add JIRA integration with the Github repository?
> >
>
> Great question.  IIRC, there is no real requirement to use JIRA for a
> project's defect tracking, it is just common to do so.  Any particular
> reason you dislike GitHub issues?  It might further simplify the workflow.
>

There is gitbox - jira integration in place and its (finally!) functional,
so nothing changes on that front.

>
>
>
> >
> > OpenNLP JIRA issues don't show or link to/index related git commits while
> > IMO
> > *that* would be very useful to have.
> >
> > Anyhow, I understand the benefit of directly using and pushing to github
> > so I'm OK and +1 on moving to gitbox if this now is an 'endorsed'
> solution
> > at
> > Apache.
> >
> > But I also strongly dislike the fact there is zero documentation and also
> > no
> > Apache guidelines how gitbox can and may, and may not, be used.
> >
>
> Agree on the lack of documentation.  Since @smarthi is a big proponent,
> maybe he will improve the documentation ;)
>
> I am a big proponent of all things verbal, and completely
anti-documentation.
Sorry i will not be able to help with improving the documentation. :)


>
> >
> > Ate
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If anything, it greatly simplifies committer workflow as Steve's
> > >>>>> mentioned
> > >>>>> before.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> How, in which way?
> > >>>> Sure, I get github and git in general, but I cannot find *any*
> > >>>> explanation
> > >>>> or documentation concerning gitbox.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I won't, can't really, vote positively on this without some context.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu>
wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 2017-07-05 19:22, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This is a vote to move all streams repos to Gitbox, some
of the
> > other
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> projects have started to move their repos to gitbox.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This was discussed before, and while I probably will
be +1,
> > >>>>>> I'm still clueless what gitbox provides, allows, enabled
and what
> > >>>>>> restrictions/limitations it imposes.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> While I suppose it to be 'cool' and 'it'll be great', as
(P)PMC we
> > >>>>>> should *know* what we're getting (or accepting) by moving
to
> gitbox,
> > >>>>>> *before* deciding.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Here's my +1 binding.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This vote will close in 72 hrs.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

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