One more thought on this: if we switched, I'd want to take the opportunity to move GitHub notifications to the notifications@ list. That allows people to subscribe directly to GitHub for customizing their notification settings, or to subscribe to the notifications@ list. It would help reduce redundant messages for those subscribing to dev@
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:45 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > (Note: CC'd Fluo dev list) > > Fluo recently switched to GitBox. I figured this experience might be > useful to mention if Accumulo decides to do it: > > Pitfalls: > > 1. commits and notifications didn't get forwarded to their respective > mailing lists properly at first; that was an incubator-specific issue that > wouldn't apply if Accumulo moved > > 2. the website repo stopped updating the website; I believe that has been > fixed (but haven't pushed a new website commit to test), and can probably > be avoided by mentioning the git-based website in the request to move to > GitBox (which I forgot to do) > > 3. I forgot to update the Jenkins builds for Fluo, so those were broken > for a few days; trivial to fix, and Fluo mostly relies on Travis CI instead > of Jenkins anyway > > 4. Since the URL changed, I had to update my ~/.gitconfig settings for the > credential.helper with a second credential line, and type in my password > once to save it in GNOME keyring daemon the first time I pushed a new > commit: > [credential] > helper = gnome-keyring > [credential "https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/";] > username = ctubbsii > [credential "https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/";] > username = ctubbsii > > 5. notifications may come from a different email address, so it may need > to be white-listed by the moderators the first time it sends to the list > > Several benefits (some surprising): > > 1. Can self-serve Travis CI configuration, because Travis CI grants > permissions based on whether you have write permission on the GitHub repo. > This was a very cool benefit. We can now clear caches, and set up builds > with more control (per-branch, pull requests, etc.) than before, without > submitting trivial INFRA tickets. > > 2. Can assign issues/PRs to individuals as well as use labels, milestones, > to make them more searchable; for Accumulo, this would only benefit PRs, > because we're not using GH issues. > > 3. Can close issues. > > 4. Only the host name changed in the URLs. GitBox is set up exactly like > git-wip, so that was very convenient. A simple find/replace was sufficient > to update docs and config files with the new host name without changing the > path to the repo on that host. > > 5. When pushing to the server, the git client receives and prints messages > about the pre-/post-push actions that the server is doing, like triggering > mailing list notifications. I found this to be pleasantly informative, and > possibly useful for debugging. > > 6. A private GitHub team is created in the Apache GitHub organization for > the Apache users who have registered their GitHub user name. This means > that the whole team can be @mentioned in GitHub by a team member, and team > members can more easily find their colleagues on GitHub (only works for > those who have opted-in with their GitHub user name). > > 7. This wouldn't apply to Accumulo, but Fluo was able to close a long-open > 1.0.0 milestone that we hadn't been able to close since moving the repo to > ASF. In general, this allows milestone management in GitHub (may not ever > matter for Accumulo). > > Unknowns: > > 1. One thing that's not known is how well the JIRA integration will > migrate. I imagine it works fine, but Fluo doesn't use JIRA, so I can't > speak to that. > > Overall: > > Overall, I think individual developer clones were easy to update, and it > didn't seem to inconvenience anybody too much. I emailed the list with a > one-liner to update the URL, and that seemed to be appreciated/helpful. > (git remote set-url <apache-remote> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/<repo>). This wouldn't be necessary > if INFRA made the old URL redirect to the new one, but such as it is, they > have not done so. > > The switch enables a lot more self-service, putting things more under the > control of the PMC/committers, so INFRA doesn't have to be involved for > various minor things. I think this is better for the foundation, because > less tedious issue-handling means INFRA can operate more efficiently, > possibly at lower cost to the foundation. > > I'm regularly seeing new small benefits (like the Travis CI one) that I > wasn't fully expecting. There has been no downside (other than the time I > spent chatting with INFRA to fix the mailing list notifications and website > rendering, which I didn't mind doing) after changing the hostname. > > If Accumulo moves to GitBox, we should specify in the request: > 1. list to use for PR/comment notifications > 2. list to use for commits > 3. git-based website > 4. JIRA integration (with "worklog" option) > 5. list of repos to move (presumably, all accumulo*) > > > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:53 PM Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I would like to revisit the discussion of moving to GitBox but table any >> discussion of moving to GitHub issues as there is no consensus. >> >> I think it would be useful to move to GitBox for the ability to merge and >> close pull requests. We currently have several old pull requests on the >> Accumulo GitHub page: >> >> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pulls >> >> Some are several years old. We should only keep open PRs that are being >> reviewed/worked on. However, PRs can only be closed by the person that >> created it or by pushing an empty commit that closes them. With GitBox, >> committers could close them on GitHub. >> >> GitBox would also be useful for the Accumulo-website Github page now. For >> 2.0, each documentation page has an "Edit this page" link. See the page >> below for an example: >> >> https://accumulo.apache.org/docs/unreleased/getting-started/design >> >> This will hopefully lead to more PRs from users as the "Edit this page" >> link directs you to GitHub where can you to edit the markdown and submit a >> pull request without leaving GitHub. When 2.0 gets released, it would >> nice >> to be able to merge/close these PRs too. >> >> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Late to this thread, but wanted to offer my 2 cents. Having done >> several >> > releases, the search and bulk edit features of Jira were really key. >> > Moving all those issues is really the worst part of doing a release, >> > because you have to open each one and try to understand enough about it >> to >> > make a decision. Some tickets are assigned to 1.7, 1.8 and 2.0, some >> are >> > 1.8 and 2.0, some were only 1.8. You have to bulk edit each distinct >> > combination. I am unsure what the GH would be except to edit them 1 by >> 1. >> > Although if we cleaned up old issues it wouldn't be as big a deal. >> > >> > I would be willing to try it out better GH integration. I love the PR >> > review. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 7:54 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > I agree with Mike here, but to be clear, that's not what I was >> proposing. >> > > :) >> > > >> > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:35 PM Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I prefer GithHub issues over JIRA. Apache JIRA is slow, has a >> bloated >> > UI, >> > > > and it's annoying that it doesn't remember my session and I have to >> > > > re-login daily. I think new developers (esp those unfamiliar with >> > Apache) >> > > > are more likely to report/work on issues if they were on GitHub as >> most >> > > > non-Apache projects use GitHub and Apache JIRA requires an extra >> > account. >> > > > I understand two issue trackers can be pain (esp for the person >> > creating >> > > > release notes) but I would rather encourage more issue reporting and >> > > > contributions then speed up the process of creating release notes. >> We >> > > could >> > > > also move over the remaining open JIRA issues if GH issues became >> more >> > > > heavily used. >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > (just making sure my point is clear and that Mike's is another >> unique >> > > > > point that I hadn't actually considered..) >> > > > > >> > > > > I meant confusion about what information would be encapsulated in >> > JIRA >> > > > > and what information would be encapsulated in GH metadata. >> > > > > >> > > > > e.g. we missed issue $x in the 2.x.x. release notes because it had >> > the >> > > > > "releasenotes" GH label and not a "releasenotes" JIRA label (or >> vice >> > > > > versa). I think a similar issue would come up with "fixVersion" >> and >> > > > > "milestone". >> > > > > >> > > > > Our use of JIRA is pretty well hashed out, and I think it works >> well >> > > for >> > > > > us. To my earlier point, without a specific hole in our current >> > > process, >> > > > > this just seems likely to create confusion about how to use it. >> The >> > > > > points you referenced to me don't seem virulent enough to justify >> the >> > > > > switch. >> > > > > >> > > > > Mike Drob wrote: >> > > > > > Changing the repo URL seems fairly disruptive to me, fwiw. Would >> > need >> > > > to >> > > > > > send notice to the dev list with instructions how to update your >> > git >> > > > > > remotes probably. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017, 10:30 AM Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:50 AM Josh Elser< >> josh.el...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> Christopher wrote: >> > > > > >>>> 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). >> > > > > >>> Ok, migrating to GH issues was just a data point for now. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>>>> 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. >> > > > > >>> I don't agree with the assessment that it's much harder to >> open >> > the >> > > > > JIRA >> > > > > >>> issue in another browser tab, but perhaps that's just me. I >> think >> > > > > having >> > > > > >>> relevant project tracking information shared across two >> separate >> > > > > systems >> > > > > >>> is a recipe for disaster. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>>> 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. >> > > > > >>> IMO, someone saying "I'm working on merging this" is >> sufficient. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>>> I think using GitBox would also allow us to close PRs without >> > > > adding a >> > > > > >>>> dummy commit. >> > > > > >>> Might be nice, but doing a dummy commit or asking the author >> to >> > > close >> > > > > it >> > > > > >>> is not onerous. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>>> 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. >> > > > > >>> That would be nice -- GH does have some nice push-button >> > > integrations >> > > > > >> here. >> > > > > >>>> 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. >> > > > > >>> Thanks for listing these points. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> I don't see this as having sufficient value to disrupt our >> > existing >> > > > > >>> workflow. The points you raised are primarily convenience >> issues, >> > > not >> > > > > >>> flaws in our JIRA workflow. Given the overall "low" activity >> on >> > the >> > > > > >>> project, I don't see a point in disrupting what has been >> working >> > > for >> > > > us >> > > > > >>> and what the gray-beards are used to doing. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >> I guess I just don't see it as much of a disruption. There's >> the >> > > > > switching >> > > > > >> cost, which is pretty small**, but after that, there's not >> really >> > > any >> > > > > >> downside. We wouldn't lose anything, but would gain some >> things. >> > > > However >> > > > > >> small they might be, they can add up. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> In any case, I'm also fine waiting for now... to see how GitBox >> > > > matures. >> > > > > >> This is actually far more important for Fluo (which uses GH >> > issues) >> > > > than >> > > > > >> for Accumulo. I opened a similar discussion on the Fluo dev >> list, >> > > and >> > > > if >> > > > > >> Fluo switches to GitBox, we can provide feedback here to how it >> > all >> > > > > worked >> > > > > >> out, if we want to revisit this later. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> **Just a change in URL for the repo for anybody not actively >> > > involved >> > > > in >> > > > > >> working with INFRA to make the switch happen. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >>>>>> 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. >> > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
