Hi Julian: The current workflow is to have the PRs go through Travis to make the job of the reviewer far easier. This is what is missing and slows closing PRs.
Cheers, Jignesh > On May 10, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: > > It’s a question of priority. Let’s not let the low priority stuff block the > important stuff. Moving source control is urgent. I haven’t yet heard a > reason why CI should delay moving source control. > >> On May 10, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Jignesh Patel <jipa...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> Dear Julian, >> >> You do make a good point, but we have a very heavy reliance on the CI and it >> will certainly help the transition. >> >> Since other Apache projects do have a Travis CI, Zuyu has reached out to >> Roman to see if we can set this up. >> >> Agreed about the points that both you and Roman are making — we do need to >> move fully to ASF soon. Thanks for your patience. >> >> Cheers, >> Jignesh >> >>> On May 9, 2016, at 1:27 AM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 8, 2016, at 8:39 PM, Zuyu Zhang <zzh...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, we need fix QUICKSTEP-2 before transiting to ASF. >>> >>> I disagree. It is much more important that you use ASF infrastructure for >>> source control than for CI, and the one does not block the other. >>> >>> At Calcite it took a long time before we had CI running on ASF >>> infrastructure. We continued to use Travis-CI, which we’d used before ASF. >>> >>> As Roman says, it is important for IP hygiene that commits are made >>> directly to ASF git, and the sooner you switch over the better. I think you >>> can do that before you transition CI. >>> >>> Julian >> >
