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 Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:39:32 GMT
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
>
>

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