+1 Ralph
> On Apr 29, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Ílson Bolzan <ilbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Good point on the clarification. I said all git repos, and that actually >> entails: >> >> * chainsaw >> * log4cxx >> * log4j2 and all its repos >> * log4net >> * log4php >> * parent pom >> >> In fact, the only repos this doesn't cover are the old log4j 1 svn repos >> that we have. >> >>> On 29 April 2018 at 05:08, Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Also for the log4net repository. >>> >>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, 23:59 Remko Popma, <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018, 17:12 Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a vote to migrate from the existing git-wip-us >> infrastructure >>>> to >>>>>> the currently supported gitbox infrastructure that Infra advocates >>> for >>>>>> using nowadays. Using gitbox will allow our projects to integrate >>>> better >>>>>> with GitHub including the ability to merge PRs directly from the >> site >>>> and >>>>>> the ability to push commits to GitHub and have them be >> automatically >>>>>> mirrored back to Apache. Not only that, but new Apache projects >>> cannot >>>>> use >>>>>> the old git-wip-us infrastructure anymore, so it makes sense to >>> migrate >>>>> to >>>>>> the best supported option going forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> The migration process will entail the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Marking existing git repo as read-only >>>>>> * Moving repo to gitbox >>>>>> * Update website and pom.xml with new SCM URLs >>>>>> * Update local git clones with the new remote URL(s) >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that this vote only applies to the source code. I'm not >>>> considering >>>>>> using GitHub Issues instead of Jira, for example. Note also that >> this >>>>> vote >>>>>> does not apply to the use of subversion for publishing the site >>>>> (svnpubsub) >>>>>> nor the use of it for publishing releases (only available via svn), >>>>> though >>>>>> moving the sites from svnpubsub to gitpubsub (i.e., storing the >>>> generated >>>>>> site in a branch called "asf-site", similar to the "gh-pages" >> branch >>>>>> feature on GitHub) would be a related topic to cover separately. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please vote +1, +0, -0, or -1. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>
