+1 from me to go ahead. Most projects seem to be moving to the model of using "main" as the default branch so I think we should do the same.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:45 PM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > That means we can go ahead with that then... > > if anyone have any objections, let me know.. > > > I will ask in the ticket for when that would be done. > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 4:10 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Only 2 PRs in one repo closed unexpectedly, all the rest remained open > > as expected (including newer and older PRs in the same repo; it's not > > clear why those 2 were different). > > > > It is easy to spot the PRs affected if it happens and react to it as > > needed, and would happen similarly with the other approach but > > affecting all PRs, so I wouldnt especially delay things due to it > > personally (and note Infra are backlogged, so you will likely need to > > wait a bit already). Though of course merging anything that can be > > first wouldnt be a bad thing. > > > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 18:11, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > I was just waiting the outcome from you before I went ahead with > > > ActiveMQ changes.. > > > > > > > > > @all should we merge as many Pull Requests we would like and some > > > cleanup before we go ahead with the change? since they are going to be > > > closed apparently? > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:50 PM Robbie Gemmell > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Infra did a test change on a single repo last week and all the > > > > remaining repos today, so we have now renamed all the Qpid repository > > > > branches from master to main using GitHub. > > > > > > > > It was straightforward and as expected for the most part, though > there > > > > were a couple of slight oddities: > > > > - A couple of PRs did close unexpectedly saying master was deleted, > > > > but the rest remained open and were rebased onto main as expected. > > > > It's easy to tell if it happens. > > > > - A variable number of commits per repo (some none, mostly only a > few, > > > > but 40 in one case) caused some 'replay'-like behaviour without clear > > > > reason, provoking JIRA commit comment updates and related mails as if > > > > they had just been pushed afresh. > > > > > > > > In short though these oddities were no big deal and the overall > > > > outcome is nicer than the new-branch + delete-master approach. I'd > > > > suggest asking to do it the same way. > > > > > > > > The related infra JIRA for Qpid was > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21589 > > > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 at 20:21, Clebert Suconic < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Using the GitHub to rename would be great as any PRs will probably > be > > > > > included. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Rob. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:08 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nice ! Thanks for the update ! > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 16 mars 2021 à 19:08, Robbie Gemmell < > [email protected]> a > > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was originally going to begin the rename process for Qpid > tomorrow, > > > > > > > but in the past week I have either done or been on the > receiving end > > > > > > > of some GitHub-based renames elsewhere which gave a nicer end > result > > > > > > > than pushing a new branch and updating the default would. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Knowing that it is an option to push to the Apache GitHub > repos I had > > > > > > > a chat with Infra about whether it might actually be possible > for them > > > > > > > to use the GitHub renaming tooling for this, as its just a > nicer end > > > > > > > state for everyone. Infra said it isnt something they have > done before > > > > > > > but would look into it, and could possibly try it out on the > Qpid > > > > > > > repos. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You might want to hold off on the ActiveMQ repo changes a > little to > > > > > > > see what the outcome of that is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 15:34, Clebert Suconic < > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks a lot, I have everything I need now > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I plan to work on this next week.. I will follow up with > progress as I > > > > > > >> go over this thread. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:24 AM Robbie Gemmell < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Yep, thats the only config we have for the website auto > build, which > > > > > > >>> is a standard build. Essentially we just enable it and tell > it which > > > > > > >>> branch to build changes from (the one matching whoami) and > then the > > > > > > >>> target branch to commit and push any output updates to, > where they are > > > > > > >>> then picked up from for the web servers. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The build itself occurs on a Builtbot CI instance at > > > > > > >>> https://ci2.apache.org/#/builders/7. A mail is sent on each > build to > > > > > > >>> commits@, e.g the latest one is: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc14442fcfba8395bec5207f2c43b8dbde068f369fabe50de039509fc%40%3Ccommits.activemq.apache.org%3E > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 22:46, Justin Bertram < > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> The website actually uses Jekyll. The branch it uses is > controlled > > > > > > via the > > > > > > >>>> .asf.yaml file [1]. More details about this are here [2]. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Justin > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> [1] > https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/blob/master/.asf.yaml > > > > > > >>>> [2] > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/git+-+.asf.yaml+features#Git.asf.yamlfeatures-JekyllCMS > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 4:42 PM Clebert Suconic < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I see the website is the pelican system. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> I'm not sure how the AMQ5 is configured on Jenkins... > that's the > > > > > > only thing > > > > > > >>>>> I'm lost now. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 4:31 PM Clebert Suconic < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> That's right.. I will do it for all the Branches... > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> At this point now I'm looking to what I would need to > change on > > > > > > ci-builds > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I'm looking on ci-builds for things we would need to > change.. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> however I don't understand how ActiveMQ5 is configured > here: > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ/job/ActiveMQ/ > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I could find the simple configuration on artemis, but > AMQ5 is using > > > > > > >>>>>> some fancy configuration that I don't know where it's > taking it > > > > > > from. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> @Jb or anyone can you give me some pointers here? I'm > really curious > > > > > > >>>>>> now.. (I know you could say you would change it. .but at > this point > > > > > > >>>>>> I'm trying to understand what is going on :) ) > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Also: where is the build for the website? I can't find it > on > > > > > > >>>>>> ci-builds.apache.org > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:10 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> That’s my guess as well ;) > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Le 9 mars 2021 à 08:57, michael.andre.pearce < > > > > > > >>>>>> [email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I assume the plan is to cover all repos, not just > artemis.Sent > > > > > > from > > > > > > >>>>> my > > > > > > >>>>>> Galaxy > > > > > > >>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Clebert Suconic > < > > > > > > >>>>>> [email protected]> Date: 06/03/2021 14:33 > (GMT+00:00) To: > > > > > > >>>>>> [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming > master as > > > > > > main > > > > > > >>>>> We > > > > > > >>>>>> will have to create the main branch on gitbox and Infra > will make > > > > > > >>>>> theswitch > > > > > > >>>>>> on GitHub.On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 12:15 AM Jean-Baptiste > Onofre < > > > > > > >>>>>> [email protected]>wrote:> Correct, we should focus on > gitbox (that’s > > > > > > why > > > > > > >>>>>> better to ask to infra).>> Regards> JB>> > Le 5 mars 2021 > à 23:16, > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > >>>>>> Bertram <[email protected]> a écrit :> >> > Aren't the > Apache > > > > > > GitHub > > > > > > >>>>>> repos just mirrors of the official versions on> > Apache's > > > > > > >>>>> infrastructure? > > > > > > >>>>>> I know when we merge PRs we push to> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/. > > > > > > If > > > > > > >>>>> the > > > > > > >>>>>> GitHub repo is just a mirror> wouldn't we> > have to > rename the > > > > > > branch on > > > > > > >>>>>> Apache first? I'm not real clear on all the> > details of > how the > > > > > > >>>>>> integration works so maybe that's wrong.> >> >> > Justin> > >> > On > > > > > > Fri, > > > > > > >>>>> Mar > > > > > > >>>>>> 5, 2021 at 4:06 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]>> > wrote:> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> GitHub solved the PR move if the rename is done via their > UI:> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/github/renaming < > > > > > > https://github.com/github/renaming>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Matt> >>> >>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 2:54 PM, Clebert > Suconic < > > > > > > >>>>>> [email protected]> >> >> wrote:> >>>> >>> Good > point.> > > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I’m not sure what to do with pending PRs> >>>> >>> In > artemis you > > > > > > could > > > > > > >>>>> use > > > > > > >>>>>> the scripts and they would work.> >>>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, > 2021 at > > > > > > 2:54 PM > > > > > > >>>>>> Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]>> >> wrote:> >>>> > >>>> +1 no > > > > > > problem. > > > > > > >>>>>> Please to cover the CI jobs, so we don’t lose those.> > >>>> Thanks!> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Clebert Suconic <> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> [email protected]>> >>>> wrote:> >>>>>> >>>>> I > would like > > > > > > to > > > > > > >>>>>> propose to rename all of our git branches as main on> > >>>>> all of > > > > > > our > > > > > > >>>>>> branches. This would be a very first easy step to take > on> >>>>> > > > > > > renaming > > > > > > >>>>>> offensive language from our codebases.> >>>>>> >>>>> We > could allow > > > > > > some > > > > > > >>>>>> time before we do that, say 7 days after we> decide> > >>>>> to take > > > > > > the > > > > > > >>>>>> move.> >>>>>> >>>>> Anyone sees a problem with that?> > >>>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > if > > > > > > >>>>>> anyone has internal forks depending on master (say if you > have a> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> downstream branch of ActiveMQ), you will likely have to > update your> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> internal git repos and scripts.> >>>>>> >>>>> We could > keep the > > > > > > master > > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > > >>>>>> some time without being updated, until> we> >>>>> remove > it later.> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --> >>> Clebert Suconic> >>> >>>> --Clebert Suconic > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > > >>>>>> Clebert Suconic > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
