Let me overview the different flows: When you're using Subversion as the master read/write repository, that gets mirrored in git.apache.org, which then gets mirrored to GitHub. To apply a PR from GitHub, you'd generally download it as a patch, apply that patch locally, then svn commit it. There's alternatives available here, but I won't go into them as they're pointless to discuss at the moment. In order to mark a PR as merged, you have to manually say something like "This closes #42" in a commit message. GitHub picks up that commit message and automatically closes whatever #42 is (issue or PR).
When you're using Git as your master repository, that is mirrored to git.apache.org as a read-only copy I believe (hence the git-wip-us URL) which uses the git:// protocol instead of https (which is the git-wip-us version). Again, that gets mirrored to GitHub. For merging PRs, you can also generate a patch file and apply it with "git apply" to preserve author info. You can also add GitHub as an additional remote in your own git clone so that you can pull directly from github, merge, then push directly to git-wip-us. GitHub will see the merge commit and will automatically close the PR. Otherwise, same as above: you can manually mark a PR as closed with the commit message thing. The main advantage of using git-wip-us instead of svn is that you're using only git. If a development team is more comfortable using svn, then stick with svn. Just note that there's a little bit more manual work in accepting PRs from GitHub when you use svn since it's basically the same thing as applying patch files uploaded to jira. On 17 March 2017 at 11:45, Thorsten Schöning <tschoen...@am-soft.de> wrote: > Guten Tag Matt Sicker, > am Freitag, 17. März 2017 um 16:25 schrieben Sie: > > > Since I'm a PMC here, I shouldn't have any issues in the process. > > I'll post back on the lists if I need karma to do anything. > > Sorry, but seems I might be too fast by asking for a migration and I > have some questions now: > > What is the actual benefit for others(!) willing to contribute if we > move to GIT now? > > The project would very much like to be available on GitHub to let > people clone the repo, asking for pull requests and such. And it would > be great to be able to merge those pull requests as easy as possible > of course. > > I thought this is only possible by moving to GIT, but actually that > doesn't seem to be the case? I've found the following: > > > log4cxx.git Apache log4cxx git://git.apache.org/log4cxx.git > View on GitHub > > http://git.apache.org > https://github.com/apache/log4cxx > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4cxx/ > > Which claims to be a read-only mirror of the SVN repos, which would > not provide easy merging of GitHub pull requests I guess? But if I > look at the following project, I get confused: > > > We do not merge pull requests directly on Github, all PRs will be > > pulled and pushed through https://git.apache.org/. > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mynewt-core > > > asfgit merged 4 commits into apache:develop from > mkiiskila:fix-ctrl-c-win2 7 days ago > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mynewt-core/pull/203 > > That project is available as > > git://git.apache.org/incubator-mynewt-core.git > and > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-mynewt- > core.git;a=summary > > This looks like they are working with GIT internally and provide that > repo as a mirror using the read-only mirror to GitHub as well? Getting > pull requests there, downloading those somehow, pushing to their > internal repo and the asfgit-bot merges those commits back to GitHub? > But which is their internal repo they push the PRs to, git.apache.org > or git-wip-us.apache.org? I would have expected the latter. > > I'm just asking because it might simply be less work to move the SVN > repo back into it's old structure, which already is available in the > GIT-mirror and somehow get the clone at GitHub updated as well. > > I just don't know how one would deal with the pull requests on GitHub > then. One obviously couldn't commit those using SVN directly, but if > it's possible using GIT tools and git.apache.org, wouldn't that be > sufficient already? The docs regarding the svn-bridge at Apache are > not clear to me as well: > > https://wiki.apache.org/general/GitAtApache > > git.apache.org is used in the example for comitters, svn.apache.org > instead a bit higher on that page. > > In the docs, I don't see what's the actual difference/benefit of > git-wip-us, besides being native GIT, e.g. compared to the > git-svn-bridge of Apache for people who want to use GIT clients > instead of SVN ones. I guess the native GIT thing IS the only > difference? > > http://www.apache.org/dev/writable-git > https://git-wip-us.apache.org > https://reporeq.apache.org > https://reference.apache.org/pmc/github > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > Thorsten Schöning > > -- > Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: thorsten.schoen...@am-soft.de > AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/ > > Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55 > Fax...............05151- 9468- 88 > Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04 > > AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln > AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
