The only Apache requirement is that the mailing list + JIRA makes sense and is readable as a history of the project. Keeping the issues on github won't fly.
It is pretty easy to get github to hook into JIRA pretty well if the PR messages have a reference to the JIRA. I don't know the details. The suggestion to require the person who merges to include a code-word in the message is a very good one. On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't think we need anything formal. Do you want to propose a few simple > guidelines? > > E.g. Should we link to PRs on JIRA, do we really need a JIRA, the merger is > responsible for including the "close #123" syntax in the commit, etc. > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jason Altekruse <altekruseja...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Seems to be enough consensus that this is beneficial. I took a look at > the > > bylaws and it doesn't say anything specific there about an official > review > > process. Is there a need to start a separate vote thread before making a > > change like this? > > > > I would be in favor of allowing both for a little bit, if it is a > > significant improvement we can move to completely deprecate reviewboard. > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > What did we decide here? > > > > > > Are we going to move forward with trying out pull requests? If so, do > we > > > want to start having everyone do it or suggest only one or two do it to > > > start? > > > > > > thoughts? > > > Jacques > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I can't remember the rule. I think it was 3gb and 15 minutes. In > > order > > > > to get under 3 gb, I think we need to run single threaded. Last I > > > checked, > > > > running with 4 threads on dedicated hardware completes in ~12 > minutes. > > > > However, the Travis instances used to be really slow virtual > machines. > > > I'm > > > > sure a solution can be found but I think we'd need some concerted > > effort > > > on > > > > reducing the test footprint. > > > > > > > > We talked before (Daniel's suggestion) about treating more of the > tests > > > as > > > > integration tests. This would help as much of the test time is spent > > > > starting and stopping Drillbits for each test class. If we only did > > this > > > > once for all those tests, the footprint would be much smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jacques Nadeau < > jacq...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > We tried Travis before. The problem is that travis's nodes aren't > > > >> > substantial enough to complete our test suite within their > timeout. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Haven't the tests been substantially improved since then? > > > >> > > > >> Can the tests be segregated into pieces so Travis can still do some > > > useful > > > >> work? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
