On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 12:17 PM Stefan Eissing <ste...@eissing.org> wrote: > > > Am 04.03.2022 um 18:40 schrieb Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com>: > > > >> On Mar 4, 2022, at 6:17 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 9:05 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> A question: Would it be easier for all this if we moved to being Github > >>> canon? > >> > >> I think it is much more straightforward. The original work, reviews > >> and travis results are all in the same place and nothing is copied > >> around. > >> I have had the same thought a few times this week. But I was hesitant > >> to reopen that thread/discussion because I'm pessimistic we can get > >> anywhere on it. > > > > I think we are far beyond that point where staying with svn/bugzilla is > > actively > > hurting the project for little or no benefit. > > > > I'd +1 a switch just to get real issue management and PRs. > > +1
+1, agreed that it will simplify our "daily" and overall workflow. I wouldn't like that committers/PMC that don't have a github account could not participate in the new workflow though, at least for code contributions, not that I have a particular concern with github today but I wouldn't want to depend on my acceptance of their terms of service (or evolution thereof) for my contributions to httpd. But it will always be possible to commit and create branches directly in git.a.o anyway, thus propose backports in STATUS still for those who want (the ci would run on the backport branch though no github PR would be created in this case I think, thus voting would have to stay in STATUS and the merge be manual for such backport proposals), yet that looks legitimate to me. As for the comments/changes/edits/reviews in github I'm not sure that they all get forwarded to notifications@ or dev@ today, but that's good enough for me so far. Regards; Yann.
