Filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16832
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:11 PM Vinod Kone <vinodk...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > The main reason for moving to gitbox is to better avail GitHub integration > (i.e., closing stale PRs, directly merge from GH if wanted, lower barrier > for entry for newbies to contribute, better integration with CI etc). > AFAICT, this will necessitate us having write access to our GH repo. > > Since we need write access to GH, I'm wondering if there is a strong > reason for us to have write access to the ASF repo as well? Because having > two writable repos could be painful (slow sync causing merge conflicts that > need to be resolved), I'm trying to see if we can avoid that if possible. > And this is not set in stone, we can always open up write to both repos in > the future if we want/need to (e.g., GH goes poof). > > And just to be clear, making the GH repo the source of truth doesn't > change our relationship with ASF. GH is just a hosting location with better > tooling that we don't need to reinvent and/or maintain. All our existing > tooling should work just fine. > > HTH, > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:43 PM Benjamin Bannier < > benjamin.bann...@mesosphere.io> wrote: > >> Hi Vinod, >> >> We (Jie, James, me) briefly discussed this topic and some implication >> over slack: >> >> * I mentioned I was surprised how a vote on _moving the project repo to >> ASF gitbox_ turned into _moving the project repo to Github_. >> * Jie mentioned that this would simplify (enable?) how we could close >> Github PRs. He also mentioned infra reliability. >> * I mentioned that I believed that while it was in ASF’s interest to >> support us as long as ASF was around, I wasn’t sure the same would hold for >> Github. >> * I wrote that personally I’d prefer improving limitations in our tooling >> over moving to Github. >> >> That said, I’d prefer if we’d keep an ASF infra repo as source of truth >> like agreed on in the vote. We should get a clearer understanding of the >> limitations and limits of what ASF can provide before considering Github as >> source of truth. I personally do not yet see a true need. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Benjamin >> >> >> > On Jul 23, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Jie Yu <yujie....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge >> >> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request- >> >> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>" >> >> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits. >> This >> >> will be in parity with our RB based workflow. >> > >> > >> > Sounds good! And we can "ban" the rest in github setting. >> > >> > 2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos as >> >> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and >> >> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid >> >> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to >> both >> >> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization. >> > >> > >> > +1 on making only github writable. >> > >> > 3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror " >> >> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when >> posting >> >> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point >> to >> >> github too? >> > >> > >> > +1 on switching to github >> > >> > - Jie >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Vinod Kone <vinodk...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Few things we need to finalize before the gitbox move. >> >> >> >> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge >> >> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request- >> >> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>" >> >> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits. >> This >> >> will be in parity with our RB based workflow. >> >> >> >> 2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos >> as >> >> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and >> >> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid >> >> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to >> both >> >> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization. >> >> >> >> 3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror " >> >> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when >> posting >> >> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point >> to >> >> github too? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:26 PM Jie Yu <yujie....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Vinod, can you start a VOTE thread per our discussion during the >> >>> committer's meeting. >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gastón Kleiman <gas...@mesosphere.io >> > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:59 PM Vinod Kone <vinodk...@apache.org> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi folks, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving >> >> write >> >>>>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can >> >> merge >> >>>> PRs >> >>>>> directly on GitHub! >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> +1. Not only does it allow to merge PRs directly on GitHub, but it >> also >> >>>> allows committers to close stale PRs! >> >>>> >> >>>> -Gastón >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
