Am 21.09.2014 um 23:57 schrieb John Hewson <j...@jahewson.com>: > The problem is that PRs can be opened without JIRA ticket IDs attached to > them, and the projects you linked to show this happening on many occasions. >
Now, that’s a different issue and I don’t know if there is a solution to prevent that. It may or may not be an issue in practice. Apache Camel and other projects are accepting this situation and for PDFBox is might also be acceptable. It’s not a show stopper in my opinion. BR Maruan > The integration you mention looks pretty good though - linking PRs to JIRA > issues is what we want. But we need to have some way to prevent PRs from > being opened which don’t have JIRA issue IDs attached. > > -- John > > On 21 Sep 2014, at 13:31, Maruan Sahyoun <sahy...@fileaffairs.de> wrote: > >> e.g. Apache Camel does use JIRA for issue tracking. They are not using >> GitHubs issue management. And they do accept pull requests. >> >> And from the infra blog >> https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and >> >> Any Pull Request that gets opened, closed, reopened or commented on now gets >> recorded on the project's mailing list >> If a project has a JIRA instance, any PRs or comments on PRs that include a >> JIRA ticket ID will trigger an update on that specific ticket >> >> I don’t get your point. >> >> BR >> >> Maruan >> >> Am 21.09.2014 um 21:42 schrieb John Hewson <j...@jahewson.com>: >> >>>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache >>>> Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart >>>> enough to handle it too. >>> >>> None of those projects make use of file attachments for issues the way that >>> we do. >>> >>>> I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests. >>> >>> Is exactly my point - we’re forced to use GitHub issues for pull requests, >>> which is a problem because then we don’t get to manage these via JIRA. >>> Looking at these projects all of them have had pull requests which do not >>> contain any references to JIRA issues but have been merged in, so it seems >>> certain that we would loose JIRA as a central point of information. >>> >>> -- John >>> >>> On 20 Sep 2014, at 04:24, Maruan Sahyoun <sahy...@fileaffairs.de> wrote: >>> >>>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache >>>> Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart >>>> enough to handle it too. And I can’t see the issues tab for these projects >>>> but pull requests. >>>> >>>> BR >>>> Maruan >>>> >>>> Am 20.09.2014 um 04:22 schrieb John Hewson <j...@jahewson.com>: >>>> >>>>>> 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 <sahy...@fileaffairs.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maruan Sahyoun >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <j...@jahewson.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 <thaush...@t-online.de> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> <thaush...@t-online.de>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 <thaush...@t-online.de> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
