> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache > projects
The problem with that approach is that GitHub’s pull requests can only be managed via GitHub’s issues interface, so we’re forced to use it. There’s no way to prevent GitHub users from opening and discussing issues in pull requests rather than on JIRA. -- John On 17 Sep 2014, at 21:58, Maruan Sahyoun <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Maruan Sahyoun > >> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <[email protected]>: >> >> I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk >> where they can be built along with it. >> It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. >> They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, >> which is a good thing. >> >> I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to >> the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could >> do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It >> would be great if it did. >> > > OK so lets try with the docs. > > To mention it for completness - the build process for the web site and the > documentation contained within will still be done by the Apache CMS. > >> It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to >> GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no >> file attachments), which is really a shame. >> > > Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache > projects > >> -- John >> >>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Maruan, >>> >>> The examples only. >>> >>> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it >>> (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't >>> mind. >>> >>> Tilman >>> >>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun: >>>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both? >>>> >>>> BR >>>> >>>> Maruan >>>> >>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be >>>>> a pain". A "soft -1". >>>>> >>>>> Tilman >>>>> >>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]> hat am 16. September 2014 um >>>>>>> 18:03 >>>>>>> geschrieben: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types. >>>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it >>>>>> a clear >>>>>> veto? >>>>>> >>>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to >>>>>> a new >>>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and >>>>>> that >>>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and >>>>>> of course >>>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown >>>>>> in at >>>>>> the deep end after the migration. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tilman >>>>>> BR >>>>>> Andreas >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun: >>>>>>>> Hi there, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the >>>>>>>> documentation and >>>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a >>>>>>>> git >>>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow >>>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of >>>>>>>> communication and >>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes >>>>>>>> necessary yet >>>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before >>>>>>>> putting more effort into that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maruan >>
