On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:09 PM Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Christopher wrote: > > Hi all, it looks like https://gitbox.apache.org is up and running. > > > > From what I understand, this provides bi-directional mirroring between > > GitHub repos and ASF repos, and would allow us to manage GitHub issues > and > > PRs by adding labels and milestones to them. > > > > Personally, I think this would be helpful, especially as we use GitHub > more > > and more for pull requests / code reviews. > > Github's review interface is my favored method of code review, but it > seems like you're also suggesting that we adopt GH issues (or is that > just some passing comment about Gitbox functionality?). I think our > current process of JIRA and Github works just fine. > > Agreed, it does work fine. I'm not suggesting we adopt GH issues. But, if we ever did, this would be a prerequisite to using GH issues effectively. I personally prefer GH issues over JIRA, but if I were to propose that, it would be after we've adjusted to this switch, and I would suggest we do it gradually and organically... similar to how we transitioned from RB to GH for reviews. Technically, we still have RB, but we just don't use it because GH is better. In any case, I'm not proposing we start using GH issues, or even make it an option, right now. For now, I'm just thinking it would benefit management of PRs (among the other, lesser, benefits I list). > What problems do we have as a project which labels and milestones would > solve? Otherwise, this just seems like change for change's sake. > > I think not being able to add labels and milestones is itself a problem. It makes organizing/tracking/searching PRs harder. Certainly, it's much harder to navigate to the corresponding JIRA issue (if one was mentioned), and view that information there, rather than simply see it on the PR itself. In addition to label and milestone, it also lets us use "assignees", which I think is useful to track committers who are working on merging the PR, and "projects", which I don't think is very useful. I think using GitBox would also allow us to close PRs without adding a dummy commit. It would also allow us to push directly to GH and optionally do merges and edits from the GitHub UI, which lowers the bar for committers to make small changes or merge changes. Being able to push directly to GH also gives more options to people who might have a good GH connection, but a poor ASF connection. It also puts us in a good position to self-service Travis CI and other GH apps, as GitBox service matures and INFRA provides more self-service features. > > > If we want to use this, we can put in requests to INFRA to move our repos > > over to this service rather than the current git service. > > > > INFRA has responded to my question saying they'll support use of this on > a > > first-come first-serve basis. I think it might be worth it. Some of the > > transition might be self service (GitBox allows PMCs to set up their own > > repos), but at the very least, we'd have to request INFRA to add our PMC > to > > the list of participating projects and have them remove the old one once > > the transition is complete. > > >
