>From the discussion, it seems like we're +2, at least, with no objections to work through. So, I'll go ahead and create the INFRA issue to migrate.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:14 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > 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? > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
