Hi Ian, On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 19:32 +0100, Ian Boston wrote: > Hi, > If we can implement automation ontop of the pull request using > travis etc, > then that would be a benefit of going for a github centric workflow. > I dont > if this is appropriate for Apache projects in general, or Slings > workflow, > but do know it works exceedingly well for other projects, even where > there > are high volumes of pull requests. > > It also fosters open discussion of the code, which imho is good for > the > wider community.
That's a good point, thanks for raising it. As far as I can tell, there is nothing stopping us from doing the same process in the git-wip system, just that there is no 'merge' button, we have to do it manually. But I think that Justin has a good point with developing a Github- centric workflow and enabling merging on Github would be quite beneficial. Thanks, Robert > Best Regards > Ian > > > On 20 September 2017 at 19:17, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail > .com> > wrote: > > > in Apache OpenNLP we were on wip and then switched to gitbox > > afterwards > > because we found that easier when merging pull requests (less > > forks/origins > > to maintain) and wanted to enforce a stricter review process for > > commits so > > that now every contribution goes through a PR which needs +1s, on > > the other > > hand in Apache Lucene / Solr we have git-wip because we use it not > > much > > differently from how we used SVN in terms of development workflows. > > So I would say it depends on what we look for. > > For now I would opt for git-wip, but I see Justin's point and if > > more > > people want to go that way I can see the benefits. > > > > My 2 cents, > > Tommaso > > > > Il giorno mer 20 set 2017 alle ore 18:06 Justin Edelson < > > jus...@justinedelson.com> ha scritto: > > > > > Hi, > > > While it is true that this project does not have an existing > > > > Github-centric > > > workflow, I suspect that most of us use such a workflow on other > > > > projects, > > > so I would be more in favor of the dual-master system. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Justin > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:48 AM Robert Munteanu <rombert@apache. > > > org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > According to http://git.apache.org/ , there are two systems in > > > > use at > > > > the ASF: > > > > > > > > - the "Git Wip" system > > > > - the "Github Dual Master" > > > > > > > > I have not found any more information about these - Ian > > > > referenced the > > > > dual master some time ago [1], but AFAICT the "Wip" system is > > > > basically > > > > ASF hosted git mirrored to Github, while the "Dual Master" > > > > system > > > > allows us to push to Github as well as to the ASF Git. > > > > > > > > IMO the dual master system is for projects with a Github- > > > > centric > > > > workflow coming to the ASF, which is not our situation at all, > > > > so I'd > > > > go with the "Wip" system. > > > > > > > > What do others think? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > > > b8b0003cf9fcb1c365a9ed354fe7c > > > > 20c2c4c5b465c952829e0eb4c78@1458668880@%3Cdev.sling.apache.org% > > > > 3E > > > >
