Replies inline. ajs6f
> On Dec 12, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > I'd like to move the site. +1! > On 12/12/2018 15:25, ajs6f wrote: >> I'm all in favor, and in favor of moving the site to git at the same time. >> Indeed, we've discussed that latter before, but done nothing. >> Bruno-- I think you had some thoughts about the site question? I seem to >> remember that you did such a migration with another Apache project? > > Wasn't one of the issues that CMS is tied to svn for publication? Or am I > misremembering? I don't remember, which means nothing. :grin: It very well may be. See next point. > If so, then then move needs the website converting (Jekyll?). The last time we talked about this, that was an assumption (moving to a new build tool). I seem to recall that Bruno offered some experience from his work doing the same thing for another project. > If that's true we could get a git repo for the new site, work on it as and > when, then swap the live site. > > Does someone want to see this through? I would, albeit _slowly_, if I knew anything about the prospective build tool, or if someone else who does can be available for a bit of help. > Andy > >> ajs6f >>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: >>>> Hi Andy, >>>> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno >>>> once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our >>>> individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. >>>> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending >>>> jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can >>>> be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the >>>> forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. >>> >>> I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to >>> INFRA because they asked nicely. >>> >>>> It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we >>>> have a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time >>>> ago but I don’t recall a resolution. >>>> I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue >>>> since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn. >>>> Regards, >>>> Chris >>>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Committers - >>>>> >>>>> Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? >>>>> >>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>>>> I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here >>>>>> "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your >>>>>> development and code pushes" >>>>>> unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to >>>>>> have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access >>>>>> on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked >>>>>> to your Apache account (which I do). >>>>>> The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have >>>>>> managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a >>>>>> technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been >>>>>> asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either >>>>>> service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on >>>>>> both access points. >>>>>> JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. >>>>>> Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set >>>>>> that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! >>>>>> We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my >>>>>> only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is >>>>>> better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens. >>>>>> For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, >>>>>> shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own >>>>>> timescales. >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> But please, not go back to SVN :-) >>>>>> On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE >>>>>>> DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Apache projects, >>>>>>> I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the >>>>>>> git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming >>>>>>> months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which >>>>>>> includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF >>>>>>> commit access via gitbox.apache.org. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ## Why this move? ## >>>>>>> The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the >>>>>>> hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we >>>>>>> have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to >>>>>>> ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the >>>>>>> underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing >>>>>>> will change in your workflow other than added features and access to >>>>>>> GitHub. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ## Timeframe for relocation ## >>>>>>> Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move >>>>>>> their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary >>>>>>> timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects >>>>>>> are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After >>>>>>> this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within >>>>>>> one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list) >>>>>>> - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos >>>>>>> over to gitbox (as stated, this is highly automated and will take >>>>>>> between a minute and an hour, depending on the size and number of >>>>>>> your repositories) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To sum up the preliminary timeline; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - December 9th 2018 -January 9th 2019: Voluntary (coordinated) >>>>>>> relocation >>>>>>> - January 9th -February 6th: Mandated (coordinated) relocation >>>>>>> - February 7th: All remaining repositories are mass migrated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This timeline may change to accommodate various scenarios. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ## Using GitHub with ASF repositories ## >>>>>>> When your project has moved, you are free to use either the ASF >>>>>>> repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development >>>>>>> and code pushes. To be able to use GitHub, please follow the primer >>>>>>> at: https://reference.apache.org/committer/github >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We appreciate your understanding of this issue, and hope that your >>>>>>> project can coordinate voluntarily moving your repositories in a >>>>>>> timely manner. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All settings, such as commit mail targets, issue linking, PR >>>>>>> notification schemes etc will automatically be migrated to gitbox as >>>>>>> well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With regards, Daniel on behalf of ASF Infra. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS:For inquiries, please reply to us...@infra.apache.org, not your >>>>>>> project's dev list :-). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
