Re: New Workflow…

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Russel Winder wrote: > On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 19:45 +0200, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> […] >> To be clear (or to clarify what I mean) : >> - ctr and rct are both way to process an update *for committers*. For >> contributors, a review is necessary, of course. I may

Re: New Workflow…

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Russel Winder wrote: > On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 15:51 +0200, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> > […] >> I don't have any of those answers, all that I can say is that managing a >> large community is always a pain, you can't please every one, but at >> least, it *is* a commu

Re: New Workflow…

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 15:51 +0200, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > […] > I don't have any of those answers, all that I can say is that managing a > large community is always a pain, you can't please every one, but at > least, it *is* a community ! And when it comes to provide a decent > degree of prote

Groovy website

Hi! Onboarding a different poddling made me realize that http://groovy.incubator.apache.org/ is still pretty barren. Is there a JIRA tracking the migration? Thanks, Roman.

Re: New Workflow…

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 19:45 +0200, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > […] > To be clear (or to clarify what I mean) : > - ctr and rct are both way to process an update *for committers*. For > contributors, a review is necessary, of course. I may have made things > blurry in my previous mails. I fear there

Re: New Workflow…

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 13:52 +0200, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > […] > > Details is what matters when in front of a court... […] I am not a lawyer, but I do expert witness work in the High Court. Comments like the above are over-glib and do not properly characterize what happens in the legal process

Re: New Workflow…

Le 27/04/15 19:51, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : > Am 27.04.2015 19:45, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: > [...] >>> don't even know what RCT stands for ;) >> Review-Then-Commit as opposed to Commit-Then-Review. > > sure ... just I thought that would be RTC and CTR... but not RCT... typo? Tyop, definivotel

Re: New Workflow…

Am 27.04.2015 19:45, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: [...] don't even know what RCT stands for ;) Review-Then-Commit as opposed to Commit-Then-Review. sure ... just I thought that would be RTC and CTR... but not RCT... typo? bye blackdrag -- Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou blog: http://blackdragsvie

Re: New Workflow…

Le 27/04/15 18:44, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : > Am 27.04.2015 15:51, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: > [...] >> No, you can have someone who is not a committer, who send a pull >> request, which is reviewed by a committer. Actually, CTR works this way >> for external contributiions, and it's not really

Re: New Workflow…

Am 27.04.2015 15:51, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: [...] No, you can have someone who is not a committer, who send a pull request, which is reviewed by a committer. Actually, CTR works this way for external contributiions, and it's not really a huge pain. I don't perceive that as CTR, but well, we

Re: NSIS Groovy

I also stashed the Confluence page into a Docs director

Re: NSIS Groovy

I was concerned, with the end of the month coming up, that we might lose Codehaus access. So I used GitHub's import tool to import the NSIS-Grovoy repo into my space (https://github.com/keeganwitt/groovy-windows-installer). I also used Codehaus's Jira and Confluen

Incubator PMC/Board report for May 2015 ([ppmc])

Dear podling, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 20 May 2015, 10:30 am PST. The report for your podling will form

Re: New Workflow…

Le 27/04/15 15:10, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : > Am 27.04.2015 13:52, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: >> Le 27/04/15 11:53, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : >>> Am 27.04.2015 11:12, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: >>> [...] And it took weeks of work to find a new home and to migrate everything. Somet

Re: New Workflow…

Am 27.04.2015 13:52, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: Le 27/04/15 11:53, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : Am 27.04.2015 11:12, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: [...] And it took weeks of work to find a new home and to migrate everything. Something you want to do again ? If it had been only the git repo it woul

Re: New Workflow…

Le 27/04/15 11:53, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : > Am 27.04.2015 11:12, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: > [...] >> And it took weeks of work to find a new home and to migrate everything. >> Something you want to do again ? > > If it had been only the git repo it would not have taken weeks. It > took weeks

Re: New Workflow…

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > Am 27.04.2015 11:12, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: >> ...Standard for The ASF means something that we can bring to a juge, if >> needed. This is quite complicated to guarantee if we don't have the main >> repo in our walls > > which is d

Re: New Workflow…

Am 27.04.2015 11:12, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: [...] And it took weeks of work to find a new home and to migrate everything. Something you want to do again ? If it had been only the git repo it would not have taken weeks. It took weeks because there is a community, there are mailing lists and

Re: New Workflow…

Hi, On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Russel Winder wrote: > ...I am not sure I understand why a Git commit made directly to an ASF > repository is any less traceable, logged etc. than a commit made by > the same person on GitHub and then mirrored to ASF... I think this infrastructure-dev thread

Re: New Workflow…

Am 26.04.2015 18:01, schrieb Russel Winder: [...] Good to hear that ASF will be supporting a Git/Gerrit-based workflow. I really wonder about how that will be... especially because of things like https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8095 ... but actually even more the practical proble

Re: New Workflow…

Le 27/04/15 10:18, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : > Am 26.04.2015 18:45, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: > [...] >> This is not a question of traceability. It's just that when Github wil >> shutdown, or close their repository, we won't be dead in the water, as >> we have the main repository on *our* servers

Re: New Workflow…

Am 26.04.2015 18:45, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: [...] This is not a question of traceability. It's just that when Github wil shutdown, or close their repository, we won't be dead in the water, as we have the main repository on *our* servers. And if it sounds hypothetical, then think about what h