I'm -0. On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Asking if he's -0 or -1. > > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 11:08 Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Are you asking if Mike is "-0" vs "-1"? Or just if he has an opposition > at > > all? > > > > > > > > On 2018/03/02 01:10:16, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Is your concern significant enough to oppose the proposed action from > > Mike > > > Walch? > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018, 19:56 Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > > > My only concern is of the sort that contributors will be expected to > > have > > > > different workflows based on what they are working on. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I would like to start up this discussion again. I don't think we > have > > > > > reached consensus on moving the primary Accumulo repo to GitHub > > issues. > > > > The > > > > > primary repo has common workflows (i.e creating issues that affect > > > > multiple > > > > > versions) that don't easily transition to GitHub issues. I have > heard > > > > > several solutions but no consensus. > > > > > > > > > > As for moving our secondary repos (listed below), this seems much > > easier > > > > > and I haven't heard any concerns so far. Does anyone have concerns > > about > > > > > moving these repos? > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-examples > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-testing > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-website > > > > > https://github.com/apache/accumulo-wikisearch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the concerns brought up would be answerable with a > > trial. > > > > How > > > > > > do > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > do a release? What does aggregating issues fixed in a > > particular > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > look like? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can tag GH issues with a version but I think it's best to > > just go > > > > > > > through commit history > > > > > > > to compile the release notes. This should already be done as > > there is > > > > > no > > > > > > > guarantee > > > > > > > even with Jira that all issues were labeled correctly. If you > are > > > > using > > > > > > > GitHub issues, all issue > > > > > > > numbers in commits link back to the issue or pull request which > > we > > > > > don't > > > > > > > have with Jira right > > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This gets to an issue I have. What's our source of truth about "X > > is > > > > > fixed > > > > > > in Y" during the trial? I have been assuming that JIRA is > > currently our > > > > > > source of truth, but maybe that's wrong. Is it the release notes? > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, Git is a poor choice for the source of truth due to the > > > > > immutability > > > > > > of commit messages, at least in ASF contexts since we can't do > > force > > > > > pushes > > > > > > (in at least some branches). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > busbey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
