Thanks for commit access and the information.
Nothing opposed to a fork so lets go with that route to simplify things. The
people whom I will be sharing work with are colleagues so we can share a fork
and keep things separate.
Really appreciate all the help.
> On 1 Dec 2016, at 13.19, Daniel B
> On 01.12.2016, at 12:13, Jacob Larfors wrote:
>
> Awesome - looks good. Can I also have commit access to this one, or how do we
> plan to do this?
>
> My plan was to create an update branch on this repo and then file a pull
> request to get this into master and include the Jenkins reviewers
Awesome - looks good. Can I also have commit access to this one, or how do we
plan to do this?
My plan was to create an update branch on this repo and then file a pull
request to get this into master and include the Jenkins reviewers as Oleg
suggested.
GitHub user: jlarfors
Sent from my iPho
> On 01.12.2016, at 11:34, Jacob Larfors wrote:
>
> All good to delete the jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin-fork repo as it was never
> used.
Done, and transferred the one with issues and PRs:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
All good to delete the jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin-fork repo as it was never
used.
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 12:32:59 UTC+2, Daniel Beck wrote:
>
>
> > On 01.12.2016, at 11:17, Jacob Larfors >
> wrote:
> >
> > Great, I acknowledge and sounds like a good idea - so please go ahead.
>
> Hmmm
> On 01.12.2016, at 11:17, Jacob Larfors wrote:
>
> Great, I acknowledge and sounds like a good idea - so please go ahead.
Hmmm that didn't work…
"jenkinsci already has a repository in the jenkinsci-transfer/klocwork-plugin
network"
It looks like I'll have to delete the repo we already have
Great, I acknowledge and sounds like a good idea - so please go ahead.
Thanks,
Jacob
On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 21:03:00 UTC+2, Daniel Beck wrote:
>
>
> > On 28.11.2016, at 17:44, Jacob Larfors >
> wrote:
> >
> > Awesome, and thanks Daniel & Gregory.
>
> We have control over the klocwork
> On 28.11.2016, at 17:44, Jacob Larfors wrote:
>
> Awesome, and thanks Daniel & Gregory.
We have control over the klocwork plugin. It currently resides in
https://github.com/jenkinsci-transfer/klocwork-plugin
I'll rename the existing repo and move this one into jenkinsci as soon as you
ackn
Hi Oleg,
Awesome, and thanks Daniel & Gregory.
See you tomorrow.
Best Regards,
Jacob
> On 28 Nov 2016, at 17.35, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just FYI, we have got a reply from Gregory in the separate thread. Now you
> have an authorization from the original maintainer, hence you can pr
Hi,
Just FYI, we have got a reply from Gregory in the separate thread. Now you
have an authorization from the original maintainer, hence you can proceed
with the release once you are ready.
See you tomorrow!
Best regards,
Oleg
2016-11-28 16:20 GMT+01:00 Jacob Larfors :
> Hi Oleg,
>
> That's gr
Hi Oleg,
That's great - I saw the meeting summary so thanks for bringing this to
light. I spoke with our plugin developer on Friday and we will get the
plugin updated and ready for release whilst we wait for a reply from
gboissinot and prepare a branch on the jenkinsci project ready for a pull
Hi Jacob,
On Wednesday we agreed with the proposed plan. Here is the meeting summary:
http://meetings.jenkins-ci.org/jenkins-meeting/2016/jenkins-meeting.2016-11-23-18.00.html
We agreed that I and Daniel will make the last attempt to reach out the
original plugin maintainers with a final 2-week
Many thanks for helping so much with this. The plan sounds good to me.
My Jenkinsci account is: jlarfors
Thanks again,
Jacob
On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 18:05:20 UTC+1, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>
> I have added the the topic to the agenda of the tomorrow's governance
> meeting:
> https://wiki.jen
I'm personally fine with that plan.
For step "4.1", as the plugin is MIT licensed, are we really required to do
such non backward compatible change? It's a really good thing to try to
reach out, don't get me wrong, totally for it, but it does not work out,
then not that a big deal IMO.
I guess 4.
I have added the the topic to the agenda of the tomorrow's governance
meeting:
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-Nov23meeting
Jacob, could you please provide your Jenkinsci account?
Thanks in advance,
Oleg
вторник, 22 ноября 2016 г.,
In addition to this thread, I have tried to reach out Gregory directly
without success. Since he has left his original company as well as his
companion from citools org, it is a low chance we can proceed in the common
way.
I had an f2f discussion with Jacob at Embedded Conference Scandinavia. W
Any revival of this plugin will be appreciated.
Unfortunately, we cannot just fork the repository and start releasing from
it. It may be considered as a highjacking of the plugin. Plugin maintainers
commonly do not sign Jenkins CLA, hence we have no formal permission to do
so.
I think we shoul
Ok I tried contacting the other maintainer/user at cittools and his email
address for Thales does not work, so I suspect he has left Thales. As there
has also been an outstanding pull request since July, and our attempts to
contact the people at cittools has failed, I would assume this repositor
Hi Daniel, appreciate the quick feedback and thanks for the info - that
answered another question I had about why the jenkinsci repo even existed.
I would prefer to use the jenkinsci repo to avoid any future
issues/bottlenecks. I have made one last attempt at contacting cittools
because we trie
We cannot grant access to repositories outside the jenkinsci GitHub
organization. Which is one of the reasons why we strongly recommend that
plugins be maintained in that organization.
We can only grant access to https://github.com/jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin and
you'd need to sync the existing c
Hi guys,
Maybe someone can help me out, but a few weeks back I posted about commit
access to the Klocwork plugin, following a pull request for a colleague,
and neither have been answered... We really want to push some great
features out there but our hands our tied :)
If anyone knows how who t
21 matches
Mail list logo