Ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the ignorance!
+0
On 8/18/17 10:49 PM, Christopher wrote:
Enabling GH issues is not automatic and would not accompany this change. We
would have to explicitly request that, separately, if we want to do that in
the future.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:30 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
My biggest concern was the confusion around the enabling of GH issues
that would accompany this.
As long as we're not trying to do project management in two places
concurrently, I don't care either way.
On 8/18/17 4:51 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last
time
we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think
we
should revisit though.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote:
I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label
GitHub
pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close
them if
they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better
job of
reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked at
in
a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url for
Accumulo will change.
Does anyone have objections to this?
