Re: [PROPOSAL] Source code migration and process for committers and contributors

[Andrew Kennedy <an...@cloudsoftcorp.com>]

> There are a lot of challenges in incubation; dealing with
> IP clearance, getting a first release out, and acclimating to the ASF
> itself. Trying to pioneer new workflows and navigate the politics is a
> distraction to the effort to become a TLP and to ship software

+1

I think this is a very good point. I'd be happy to go along with whatever
Git workflow is preferred by the ASF, although in that case I think rather
than us trying to work out an acceptable process, the responsibility is on
Apache to define the process we should follow.

So, Dave, Chip et al, is there a definitive statement anywhere we can refer
to that describes the acceptable best practice Git workflow, and we will
just follow that?

Thanks,
Andrew.
-- 
-- andrew kennedy ? cloudsoft & software engineer : @grkvlt ;

Re: [PROPOSAL] Source code migration and process for committers and contributors

[Alex Heneveld <al...@cloudsoftcorp.com>]

Thanks for the guidance, David, and for the link to:

https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and

There are some nice features described there, including PR's going to 
mailing list and IRC.  +1 to using it.

Text could be along the lines of:

* Contributors should fork and make pull requests to github 
apache/incubator-brooklyn

* The canonical repository is at git-wip-us.apache.org .  This is 
mirrored to the above github.

* The github accounts "brooklyn" and "brooklyncentral" are maintained 
externally.
    They host ancillary blueprints and projects (non-ASF but Apache 
licensed)
    and a mirror of the main project for convenience and backwards 
compatibility.
    PR's for Apache Brooklyn should *not* be made against these accounts.

WDYT?

Best
Alex


On 01/06/2014 22:32, David Nalley wrote:
> On 06/01, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
>>> There are a lot of challenges in incubation; dealing with
>>> IP clearance, getting a first release out, and acclimating to the ASF
>>> itself. Trying to pioneer new workflows and navigate the politics is a
>>> distraction to the effort to become a TLP and to ship software
>> +1
>>
>> I think this is a very good point. I'd be happy to go along with whatever
>> Git workflow is preferred by the ASF, although in that case I think rather
>> than us trying to work out an acceptable process, the responsibility is on
>> Apache to define the process we should follow.
>>
>> So, Dave, Chip et al, is there a definitive statement anywhere we can refer
>> to that describes the acceptable best practice Git workflow, and we will
>> just follow that?
>>
> So http://git-wip-us.apache.org has some documentation, but it's almost certainly not what you are looking for.
> This is essentially one reason the problem has occurred. In the 'old days' when there was only CVS or SVN it wasn't a big deal, there was only one true repository; so as a result no documentation exists.
> In terms of 'acceptable' the key tenants for now are:
> 1. Treat the ASF repo as canonical. Committers should be doing their work there. It's easy to tell when this isn't the case; or when folks are slurping data back and forth between external repos.
> 2. If I were prescribing what you should do, I'd say if you want some form of github interaction - you can use the ASF-provided stuff detailed at:
> https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and
>
> This doesn't mean you can't do other things, but the above is the path of least resistance IMO.
>
> --David

Re: [PROPOSAL] Source code migration and process for committers and contributors

[David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>]

On 06/01, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
> > There are a lot of challenges in incubation; dealing with
> > IP clearance, getting a first release out, and acclimating to the ASF
> > itself. Trying to pioneer new workflows and navigate the politics is a
> > distraction to the effort to become a TLP and to ship software
> 
> +1
> 
> I think this is a very good point. I'd be happy to go along with whatever
> Git workflow is preferred by the ASF, although in that case I think rather
> than us trying to work out an acceptable process, the responsibility is on
> Apache to define the process we should follow.
> 
> So, Dave, Chip et al, is there a definitive statement anywhere we can refer
> to that describes the acceptable best practice Git workflow, and we will
> just follow that?
> 

So http://git-wip-us.apache.org has some documentation, but it's almost certainly not what you are looking for. 
This is essentially one reason the problem has occurred. In the 'old days' when there was only CVS or SVN it wasn't a big deal, there was only one true repository; so as a result no documentation exists. 
In terms of 'acceptable' the key tenants for now are: 
1. Treat the ASF repo as canonical. Committers should be doing their work there. It's easy to tell when this isn't the case; or when folks are slurping data back and forth between external repos. 
2. If I were prescribing what you should do, I'd say if you want some form of github interaction - you can use the ASF-provided stuff detailed at: 
https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and

This doesn't mean you can't do other things, but the above is the path of least resistance IMO. 

--David