On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 11:21 +0200, Konrad Windszus wrote: > > - account linking and personal access token generation are one-time > > actions that take little time to perform > > right, but at least for the sling-site case committing to gitbox is > even less effort, because every committer already has HTTPS write > access to that repo. I had some troubles with the linking because it > seems that after enabling 2fa on Github there is a delay of up to 30 > minutes until the daemon picks up the change on ASF side.
Yes, that is documented at https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/ . > > - making github the preferred push repository makes me more > > confident > > that we won't have any conflicts due to merging pull requests > > not sure how ASF gitbox and Github are syncing exactly and what > happens in case of conflicts. Do you have any source available which > explains the process more in detail? Also to me it is not clear which > URL to include there: SSH based or HTTPS based? Unfortunately no, that this is part of why I support one definite 'master' git repo to use. I would favour HTTPS as it's probably not filtered anywhere, whereas SSH is sometimes blocked by firewalls. > > - automation is more readily available with github rather than > > gitbox > > and we may choose to add more automation in the future > > you are probably referring to the Github API for which there is no > alternative on the ASF side. I agree with that as well. Also having > SSH authentication available at Github is a big pro (but should not > be required for publishing the sling site though) Yes, agreed, we should not require SSH for publishing. > > But please also consider the other points: > > > > Also, pushing to github is a supported setup, this was why we > > decided > > to go with gitbox in the first place [1]. Pushing to the ASF repos > > sort > > of defeats the purpose of that. > > Don't agree with that. Pushing to ASF repos does not prevent anyone > from using the Github repos. > It is just less obvious that you can also use Github. That circles back to how stable we think the dual-master setup is. Yes, we can try and use gitbox as a canonical repository and use Github as a remote only when needed. > > The main question to me is: how stable do we consider each of the two > repos? > IMHO the gitbox repo URL is much more stable as Github could > theoretically end at any point in time the collaboration with the ASF > and just would no longer provide that service for free. Modifying the > documentation and poms afterwards would be a big hassle. > > I guess providing Maven artifacts not only via Maven Central but > primarily through the ASF dist server is a very similar requirement ( > http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#distribution). > What do others think? My recollection is that the dual system is approved since a push to Github is automatically replicated to ASF servers - the source still lives on the ASF repos. ----- Anyway, my understanding of what we aim to do might be wrong and since no one else seems to desire a canonical Github URL I'll switch the sling-site repo to publish via gitbox later today or early tomorrow. Robert
