The github integration offers option to also mirror all of the project activity to an apache mail list, which would make sure *all* activity of the project makes it to Apache archive. The complaints I've seen are that such messages make the dev lists way too noisy. I suppose there could be a separate mail list just for those messages and those that do want to follow it in email rather than in github. The other way is that committers just make sure all pull-requests have JIRA ID added to the title, which allows it all be sucked into JIRA.
I also like the idea to move to docker. We'll definitely have to explore that. We currently have quite a few project VM's managed with puppet, including build and test machines. -Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Stack > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 21:14 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Proposal: Trafodion Code Development Process in Apache > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Varnau, Steve (Trafodion) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Comment below... > > .... > > > > > > > This will split the comment history across two systems. > > > > Apache Infra provides integration with github, such that all the > > github pull-request activity is mirrored back to JIRA. Jira is the > > system of record. Github provides a better code-review interface than > > Jira, so it is convenient to make code review comments there. > > Apache/Spark and other projects use similar process. > > > > > The thread I cite was explicitly about difficulty being able to search > pulls in Spark. > > If JIRA "is the system of record" and pull-request back and forth shows > in JIRA, then that sounds good; my concern is addressed. > > > > > The Apache CI system does not have any RedHat/Centos systems as far as > > we can tell, so we'd need to continue running them elsewhere. Again, I > > believe Spark and other projects do as well. > > > > > I like the Roman suggestion in a subsequent message, that T8 do docker; > it would seem to make sense particularly in your case given the list of > dependencies required. > > > > One key is that each pull-request in github should have a JIRA-ID in > > the title. Committers should not discuss/merge something that doesn't. > > > > > Sounds good Steve, > St.Ack > > > > > > -Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the development point of view, everyone would need a github > > > > account, rather than gerrit account. The workflow would be to do > > > > work on a branch, push the branch to their fork on github, then > > > > make a pull-request on github. I'll provide some detailed > > > > instructions on the wiki. In order to facilitate working with > > > > github, I recommend folks use the git wrapper tool call "hub": > > > > https://hub.github.com/ > > > > > > > > Details to come, but I wanted to start the discussion whether this > > > > is the right direction. > > > > > > > > > > > The pull request would come into the apache dev list and then a > > > committer would apply it with back and forth between contributor and > > > committer happening in github -- rather than in Apache INFRA JIRA or > > > review board? > > > > > > Would this process have a "dark side" if looking in from an Apache > > > view only? Patches would show up in dev as pull requests and be > > > committed without comment because all discussion had happened > already elsewhere. > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
