On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 10:09 PM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an > increase in contributions and contributors... > > Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the > foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a > discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years > of this project :)
+0.5 I quite like the gh tooling for reviews, ci and merges (provided there are rules/enforcements about PRs based off the targeted branch, i.e. no rebase, force-push..), and I think that httpd can gain attractivity and increase contributions by doing this. My "concerns" (and missing .5) are about the interraction with our mailing list(s), though it's probably easy to address (and well done by other Apache projects). I wouldn't want to have to browse/track gh to be aware of new PRs, comments or merges/pulls (including for things I didn't participate to and thus I'm not subscribed to, yet). Committers need to be aware of them by the usual way: their mailer (central point for me). I suppose gh can thread everything smoothly... So what could be the plan regarding gh activity sent to our lists? New issues (and their activity) sent to bug@, new PRs (and their activity) sent to dev@, and merges/pulls to cvs@ (or git@)? How do other Apache projects manage this? Finally, what about commenting on gh by replying to emails, can this work? Regards, Yann.
