And here is my +1. This vote passes with 5 +1s binding and 1 +1 non-binding. I'll follow up with the migration details over the next couple days.
On 30 April 2018 at 07:04, Apache <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Ralph > > > > On Apr 29, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Ílson Bolzan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 > > > >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> Also for the log4net repository. > >>> > >>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, 23:59 Remko Popma, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Gary Gregory < > [email protected] > >>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 > >>>>> > >>>>> Gary > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018, 17:12 Matt Sicker <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > >> > > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
