Il giorno mer 27 set 2017 alle ore 09:12 Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> Hi Tommaso,
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Tommaso Teofili
> wrote:
> > ...In Sling however it might be too much to require to fire a PR for
> each and
> > every commit, given the amount of
Hi Tommaso,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Tommaso Teofili
wrote:
> ...In Sling however it might be too much to require to fire a PR for each and
> every commit, given the amount of active committers and commits we have on
> a weekly basis...
Do you mean that gitbox requires pull requests and
sorry for the late replies, however moving from wip to gitbox was not hard
at all, Infra helped us and it went smooth.
With gitbox in OpenNLP we simply create a PR, check Travis results and
eventually click the "merge PR" button from github, which is fairly
different from most of the other ASF proj
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Oliver Lietz wrote:
>> ...we should not use GitHub for issues, wiki or pages but stay with JIRA,
>> Confluence and our existing site...
+1 I agree with that.
However (and maybe I misunderstood), I tho
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> ...we should not use GitHub for issues, wiki or pages but stay with JIRA,
> Confluence and our existing site...
+1
-Bertrand
On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 14:07 +0200, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 September 2017 21:36:39 Karl Pauls wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Robert Munteanu > g> wrote:
> > > Hi Justin,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:06 +, Justin Edelson wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > While it is
On Wednesday 20 September 2017 16:06:20 Justin Edelson wrote:
> Hi,
> While it is true that this project does not have an existing Github-centric
> workflow, I suspect that most of us use such a workflow on other projects,
> so I would be more in favor of the dual-master system.
+1
O.
> Regards,
On Wednesday 20 September 2017 21:36:39 Karl Pauls wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:06 +, Justin Edelson wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> While it is true that this project does not have an existing Github-
> >> centric
> >>
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:06 +, Justin Edelson wrote:
>> Hi,
>> While it is true that this project does not have an existing Github-
>> centric
>> workflow, I suspect that most of us use such a workflow on other
>> project
Hi Justin,
On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:06 +, Justin Edelson wrote:
> Hi,
> While it is true that this project does not have an existing Github-
> centric
> workflow, I suspect that most of us use such a workflow on other
> projects,
> so I would be more in favor of the dual-master system.
Right,
Hi Tommaso,
On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 18:17 +, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> in Apache OpenNLP we were on wip and then switched to gitbox
> afterwards
> because we found that easier when merging pull requests (less
> forks/origins
> to maintain) and wanted to enforce a stricter review process for
> com
Hi Ian,
On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 19:32 +0100, Ian Boston wrote:
> Hi,
> If we can implement automation ontop of the pull request using
> travis etc,
> then that would be a benefit of going for a github centric workflow.
> I dont
> if this is appropriate for Apache projects in general, or Slings
> wo
Hi Tommaso,
Was it a pain to switch from wip to gitbox?
Regards,
Justin
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:17 PM Tommaso Teofili
wrote:
> in Apache OpenNLP we were on wip and then switched to gitbox afterwards
> because we found that easier when merging pull requests (less forks/origins
> to maintain) a
Hi,
If we can implement automation ontop of the pull request using travis etc,
then that would be a benefit of going for a github centric workflow. I dont
if this is appropriate for Apache projects in general, or Slings workflow,
but do know it works exceedingly well for other projects, even where
in Apache OpenNLP we were on wip and then switched to gitbox afterwards
because we found that easier when merging pull requests (less forks/origins
to maintain) and wanted to enforce a stricter review process for commits so
that now every contribution goes through a PR which needs +1s, on the other
Hi,
While it is true that this project does not have an existing Github-centric
workflow, I suspect that most of us use such a workflow on other projects,
so I would be more in favor of the dual-master system.
Regards,
Justin
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:48 AM Robert Munteanu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Acc
Hi,
According to http://git.apache.org/ , there are two systems in use at
the ASF:
- the "Git Wip" system
- the "Github Dual Master"
I have not found any more information about these - Ian referenced the
dual master some time ago [1], but AFAICT the "Wip" system is basically
ASF hosted git mirro
17 matches
Mail list logo
