You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pdfbox.apache.org by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> on 2014/09/16 10:21:56 UTC
[DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Hi there,
in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and making it easier to contribute.
Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before putting more effort into that.
WDYT?
Maruan
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Hi,
> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 14:35
> geschrieben:
>
>
>
> Am 16.09.2014 um 14:27 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>
> >> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 14:23
> >> geschrieben:
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 16.09.2014 um 14:08 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um
> >>>> 12:06
> >>>> geschrieben:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> OK - I see what you mean, got your question wrong. We can check with
> >>>> infra
> >>>> but
> >>>> I don’t see a reason why pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples can't exist in
> >>>> new
> >>>> repos and there is pdfbox in the old one and the new repos being git
> >>>> based.
> >>>> Would behave just like ‚different‘ projects.
> >>>>
> >>> Technically yes, but we should asked infra if it's possible from the
> >>> organizational point of view.
> >>
> >> You or me going to ask?
> > Be my guest ;-)
> >
>
> Thank you - looking forward to your feedback. In the meanwhile I’ll start with
> the changes for the content.
Done, I'm simply created a JIRA ticket. Let's see what happens ....
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8357
BR
Andreas
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>.
> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 12:06
> geschrieben:
>
>
> OK - I see what you mean, got your question wrong. We can check with infra but
> I don’t see a reason why pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples can't exist in new
> repos and there is pdfbox in the old one and the new repos being git based.
> Would behave just like ‚different‘ projects.
>
Technically yes, but we should asked infra if it's possible from the
organizational point of view.
> So if it’s possible shall we do it?
+1,
We have to split the build if we move the examples to a git repo and concatenate
them.
> Moving the whole project to git is a different story. I’d see the same benefit
> applying to pdfbox but the impact is larger. So moving the docs and examples
> might also be a good test case.
>
Yes, that would be a perfect opportunity
> Maruan
Andreas
>
>
> Am 16.09.2014 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>
> >> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 11:46
> >> geschrieben:
> >>
> >>
> >> what about having extra repos for pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples?
> > Hmm, I'm a little bit puzzled. Your origin proposal was already about extra
> > git-repos for docs and examples, wasn't it?
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >>
> >> Maruan
> >>
> >> Am 16.09.2014 um 11:43 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um
> >>>> 10:21
> >>>> geschrieben:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi there,
> >>>>
> >>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation
> >>>> and
> >>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
> >>>> based
> >>>> repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow people
> >>>> to
> >>>> contribute via github opening another channel of communication and making
> >>>> it
> >>>> easier to contribute.
> >>>>
> >>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary
> >>>> yet
> >>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
> >>>> putting
> >>>> more effort into that.
> >>>>
> >>>> WDYT?
> >>> Good idea, but I'm not sure if a splitted repo configuration (svn/git) is
> >>> supported by infra. So maybe this is only possible if we migrate the whole
> >>> project to git.
> >>>
> >>>> Maruan
> >>>
> >>> BR
> >>> Andreas Lehmkühler
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
OK - I see what you mean, got your question wrong. We can check with infra but I don’t see a reason why pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples can't exist in new repos and there is pdfbox in the old one and the new repos being git based. Would behave just like ‚different‘ projects.
So if it’s possible shall we do it?
Moving the whole project to git is a different story. I’d see the same benefit applying to pdfbox but the impact is larger. So moving the docs and examples might also be a good test case.
Maruan
Am 16.09.2014 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 11:46
>> geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> what about having extra repos for pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples?
> Hmm, I'm a little bit puzzled. Your origin proposal was already about extra
> git-repos for docs and examples, wasn't it?
>
> Andreas
>
>>
>> Maruan
>>
>> Am 16.09.2014 um 11:43 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 10:21
>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation
>>>> and
>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>> based
>>>> repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow people to
>>>> contribute via github opening another channel of communication and making
>>>> it
>>>> easier to contribute.
>>>>
>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>
>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary
>>>> yet
>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>> putting
>>>> more effort into that.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>> Good idea, but I'm not sure if a splitted repo configuration (svn/git) is
>>> supported by infra. So maybe this is only possible if we migrate the whole
>>> project to git.
>>>
>>>> Maruan
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Andreas Lehmkühler
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>.
> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 11:46
> geschrieben:
>
>
> what about having extra repos for pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples?
Hmm, I'm a little bit puzzled. Your origin proposal was already about extra
git-repos for docs and examples, wasn't it?
Andreas
>
> Maruan
>
> Am 16.09.2014 um 11:43 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 10:21
> >> geschrieben:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation
> >> and
> >> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
> >> based
> >> repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow people to
> >> contribute via github opening another channel of communication and making
> >> it
> >> easier to contribute.
> >>
> >> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
> >> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
> >>
> >> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary
> >> yet
> >> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
> >> putting
> >> more effort into that.
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> > Good idea, but I'm not sure if a splitted repo configuration (svn/git) is
> > supported by infra. So maybe this is only possible if we migrate the whole
> > project to git.
> >
> >> Maruan
> >
> > BR
> > Andreas Lehmkühler
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
what about having extra repos for pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples?
Maruan
Am 16.09.2014 um 11:43 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
> Hi,
>
>> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 10:21
>> geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git based
>> repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow people to
>> contribute via github opening another channel of communication and making it
>> easier to contribute.
>>
>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>
>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before putting
>> more effort into that.
>>
>> WDYT?
> Good idea, but I'm not sure if a splitted repo configuration (svn/git) is
> supported by infra. So maybe this is only possible if we migrate the whole
> project to git.
>
>> Maruan
>
> BR
> Andreas Lehmkühler
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Hi,
> Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 10:21
> geschrieben:
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git based
> repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow people to
> contribute via github opening another channel of communication and making it
> easier to contribute.
>
> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>
> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before putting
> more effort into that.
>
> WDYT?
Good idea, but I'm not sure if a splitted repo configuration (svn/git) is
supported by infra. So maybe this is only possible if we migrate the whole
project to git.
> Maruan
BR
Andreas Lehmkühler
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> Now, that’s a different issue
Actually, it’s what I said 5 emails back in this thread:
>> The problem with that approach is that GitHub’s pull requests can only be managed via GitHub’s issues interface, so we’re forced to use it. There’s no way to prevent GitHub users from opening and discussing issues in pull requests rather than on JIRA.
> It may or may not be an issue in practice
I cited examples of this happening in existing Apache projects on GitHub to show that this is an issue in practice. It happens.
> It’s not a show stopper in my opinion.
It would be something which we’d have to police very strictly and ideally should be automated. There’s a certain amount of administrative hassle which this creates which is unavoidable.
There’s another potential issue too, thinking about it: currently all commit messages are prefixed with a JIRA issue number but commits made by GitHub users in PRs are likely to forget this, which would require all commits in the PR to be modified. Additionally GitHub users often open PRs with dozens of small commits which in most cases we’d want to be “squashed” into a single commit - we’ll need a strong policy on handling this and enough knowledge to help users get their PRs up to our quality standards.
-- John
On 21 Sep 2014, at 18:19, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
> Am 21.09.2014 um 23:57 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>
>> The problem is that PRs can be opened without JIRA ticket IDs attached to them, and the projects you linked to show this happening on many occasions.
>>
>
> Now, that’s a different issue and I don’t know if there is a solution to prevent that. It may or may not be an issue in practice. Apache Camel and other projects are accepting this situation and for PDFBox is might also be acceptable. It’s not a show stopper in my opinion.
>
> BR
> Maruan
>
>
>> The integration you mention looks pretty good though - linking PRs to JIRA issues is what we want. But we need to have some way to prevent PRs from being opened which don’t have JIRA issue IDs attached.
>>
>> -- John
>>
>> On 21 Sep 2014, at 13:31, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>
>>> e.g. Apache Camel does use JIRA for issue tracking. They are not using GitHubs issue management. And they do accept pull requests.
>>>
>>> And from the infra blog https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and
>>>
>>> Any Pull Request that gets opened, closed, reopened or commented on now gets recorded on the project's mailing list
>>> If a project has a JIRA instance, any PRs or comments on PRs that include a JIRA ticket ID will trigger an update on that specific ticket
>>>
>>> I don’t get your point.
>>>
>>> BR
>>>
>>> Maruan
>>>
>>> Am 21.09.2014 um 21:42 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>
>>>>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too.
>>>>
>>>> None of those projects make use of file attachments for issues the way that we do.
>>>>
>>>>> I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
>>>>
>>>> Is exactly my point - we’re forced to use GitHub issues for pull requests, which is a problem because then we don’t get to manage these via JIRA. Looking at these projects all of them have had pull requests which do not contain any references to JIRA issues but have been merged in, so it seems certain that we would loose JIRA as a central point of information.
>>>>
>>>> -- John
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Sep 2014, at 04:24, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too. And I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
>>>>>
>>>>> BR
>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 20.09.2014 um 04:22 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with that approach is that GitHub’s pull requests can only be managed via GitHub’s issues interface, so we’re forced to use it. There’s no way to prevent GitHub users from opening and discussing issues in pull requests rather than on JIRA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 21:58, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maruan Sahyoun
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk where they can be built along with it.
>>>>>>>> It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, which is a good thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It would be great if it did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK so lets try with the docs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To mention it for completness - the build process for the web site and the documentation contained within will still be done by the Apache CMS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no file attachments), which is really a shame.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Maruan,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The examples only.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>>>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>>>>>>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> veto?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>>>>>>>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>>>>>>>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
Am 21.09.2014 um 23:57 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
> The problem is that PRs can be opened without JIRA ticket IDs attached to them, and the projects you linked to show this happening on many occasions.
>
Now, that’s a different issue and I don’t know if there is a solution to prevent that. It may or may not be an issue in practice. Apache Camel and other projects are accepting this situation and for PDFBox is might also be acceptable. It’s not a show stopper in my opinion.
BR
Maruan
> The integration you mention looks pretty good though - linking PRs to JIRA issues is what we want. But we need to have some way to prevent PRs from being opened which don’t have JIRA issue IDs attached.
>
> -- John
>
> On 21 Sep 2014, at 13:31, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>
>> e.g. Apache Camel does use JIRA for issue tracking. They are not using GitHubs issue management. And they do accept pull requests.
>>
>> And from the infra blog https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and
>>
>> Any Pull Request that gets opened, closed, reopened or commented on now gets recorded on the project's mailing list
>> If a project has a JIRA instance, any PRs or comments on PRs that include a JIRA ticket ID will trigger an update on that specific ticket
>>
>> I don’t get your point.
>>
>> BR
>>
>> Maruan
>>
>> Am 21.09.2014 um 21:42 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>
>>>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too.
>>>
>>> None of those projects make use of file attachments for issues the way that we do.
>>>
>>>> I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
>>>
>>> Is exactly my point - we’re forced to use GitHub issues for pull requests, which is a problem because then we don’t get to manage these via JIRA. Looking at these projects all of them have had pull requests which do not contain any references to JIRA issues but have been merged in, so it seems certain that we would loose JIRA as a central point of information.
>>>
>>> -- John
>>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2014, at 04:24, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too. And I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
>>>>
>>>> BR
>>>> Maruan
>>>>
>>>> Am 20.09.2014 um 04:22 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that approach is that GitHub’s pull requests can only be managed via GitHub’s issues interface, so we’re forced to use it. There’s no way to prevent GitHub users from opening and discussing issues in pull requests rather than on JIRA.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- John
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 21:58, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maruan Sahyoun
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk where they can be built along with it.
>>>>>>> It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, which is a good thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It would be great if it did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK so lets try with the docs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To mention it for completness - the build process for the web site and the documentation contained within will still be done by the Apache CMS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no file attachments), which is really a shame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Maruan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The examples only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>>>>>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>>>>>>>>> veto?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>>>>>>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>>>>>>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>>>>>>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>>>>>>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>>>>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
The problem is that PRs can be opened without JIRA ticket IDs attached to them, and the projects you linked to show this happening on many occasions.
The integration you mention looks pretty good though - linking PRs to JIRA issues is what we want. But we need to have some way to prevent PRs from being opened which don’t have JIRA issue IDs attached.
-- John
On 21 Sep 2014, at 13:31, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
> e.g. Apache Camel does use JIRA for issue tracking. They are not using GitHubs issue management. And they do accept pull requests.
>
> And from the infra blog https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and
>
> Any Pull Request that gets opened, closed, reopened or commented on now gets recorded on the project's mailing list
> If a project has a JIRA instance, any PRs or comments on PRs that include a JIRA ticket ID will trigger an update on that specific ticket
>
> I don’t get your point.
>
> BR
>
> Maruan
>
> Am 21.09.2014 um 21:42 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>
>>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too.
>>
>> None of those projects make use of file attachments for issues the way that we do.
>>
>>> I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
>>
>> Is exactly my point - we’re forced to use GitHub issues for pull requests, which is a problem because then we don’t get to manage these via JIRA. Looking at these projects all of them have had pull requests which do not contain any references to JIRA issues but have been merged in, so it seems certain that we would loose JIRA as a central point of information.
>>
>> -- John
>>
>> On 20 Sep 2014, at 04:24, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too. And I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Maruan
>>>
>>> Am 20.09.2014 um 04:22 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>
>>>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>>>
>>>> The problem with that approach is that GitHub’s pull requests can only be managed via GitHub’s issues interface, so we’re forced to use it. There’s no way to prevent GitHub users from opening and discussing issues in pull requests rather than on JIRA.
>>>>
>>>> -- John
>>>>
>>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 21:58, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maruan Sahyoun
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk where they can be built along with it.
>>>>>> It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, which is a good thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It would be great if it did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK so lets try with the docs.
>>>>>
>>>>> To mention it for completness - the build process for the web site and the documentation contained within will still be done by the Apache CMS.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no file attachments), which is really a shame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>>>>
>>>>>> -- John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Maruan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The examples only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>>>>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>>>>>>>> veto?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>>>>>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>>>>>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>>>>>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>>>>>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>>>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>>>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>>>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>>>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
e.g. Apache Camel does use JIRA for issue tracking. They are not using GitHubs issue management. And they do accept pull requests.
And from the infra blog https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and
Any Pull Request that gets opened, closed, reopened or commented on now gets recorded on the project's mailing list
If a project has a JIRA instance, any PRs or comments on PRs that include a JIRA ticket ID will trigger an update on that specific ticket
I don’t get your point.
BR
Maruan
Am 21.09.2014 um 21:42 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too.
>
> None of those projects make use of file attachments for issues the way that we do.
>
>> I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
>
> Is exactly my point - we’re forced to use GitHub issues for pull requests, which is a problem because then we don’t get to manage these via JIRA. Looking at these projects all of them have had pull requests which do not contain any references to JIRA issues but have been merged in, so it seems certain that we would loose JIRA as a central point of information.
>
> -- John
>
> On 20 Sep 2014, at 04:24, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>
>> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too. And I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
>>
>> BR
>> Maruan
>>
>> Am 20.09.2014 um 04:22 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>
>>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>>
>>> The problem with that approach is that GitHub’s pull requests can only be managed via GitHub’s issues interface, so we’re forced to use it. There’s no way to prevent GitHub users from opening and discussing issues in pull requests rather than on JIRA.
>>>
>>> -- John
>>>
>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 21:58, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maruan Sahyoun
>>>>
>>>>> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk where they can be built along with it.
>>>>> It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, which is a good thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It would be great if it did.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK so lets try with the docs.
>>>>
>>>> To mention it for completness - the build process for the web site and the documentation contained within will still be done by the Apache CMS.
>>>>
>>>>> It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no file attachments), which is really a shame.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>>>
>>>>> -- John
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Maruan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The examples only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>>>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>>>>>>> veto?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>>>>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>>>>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>>>>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>>>>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too.
None of those projects make use of file attachments for issues the way that we do.
> I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
Is exactly my point - we’re forced to use GitHub issues for pull requests, which is a problem because then we don’t get to manage these via JIRA. Looking at these projects all of them have had pull requests which do not contain any references to JIRA issues but have been merged in, so it seems certain that we would loose JIRA as a central point of information.
-- John
On 20 Sep 2014, at 04:24, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
> I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too. And I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
>
> BR
> Maruan
>
> Am 20.09.2014 um 04:22 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>
>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>
>> The problem with that approach is that GitHub’s pull requests can only be managed via GitHub’s issues interface, so we’re forced to use it. There’s no way to prevent GitHub users from opening and discussing issues in pull requests rather than on JIRA.
>>
>> -- John
>>
>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 21:58, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maruan Sahyoun
>>>
>>>> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk where they can be built along with it.
>>>> It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, which is a good thing.
>>>>
>>>> I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It would be great if it did.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK so lets try with the docs.
>>>
>>> To mention it for completness - the build process for the web site and the documentation contained within will still be done by the Apache CMS.
>>>
>>>> It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no file attachments), which is really a shame.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>>
>>>> -- John
>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Maruan,
>>>>>
>>>>> The examples only.
>>>>>
>>>>> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>>>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>>>>>> veto?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>>>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>>>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>>>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>>>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
I’d think if projects such as Apache Camel, Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Tomee, Apache Cordova to mention some can handle it we should be smart enough to handle it too. And I can’t see the issues tab for these projects but pull requests.
BR
Maruan
Am 20.09.2014 um 04:22 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>
> The problem with that approach is that GitHub’s pull requests can only be managed via GitHub’s issues interface, so we’re forced to use it. There’s no way to prevent GitHub users from opening and discussing issues in pull requests rather than on JIRA.
>
> -- John
>
> On 17 Sep 2014, at 21:58, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Maruan Sahyoun
>>
>>> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>>
>>> I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk where they can be built along with it.
>>> It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, which is a good thing.
>>>
>>> I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It would be great if it did.
>>>
>>
>> OK so lets try with the docs.
>>
>> To mention it for completness - the build process for the web site and the documentation contained within will still be done by the Apache CMS.
>>
>>> It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no file attachments), which is really a shame.
>>>
>>
>> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>>
>>> -- John
>>>
>>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Maruan,
>>>>
>>>> The examples only.
>>>>
>>>> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>>>>
>>>> Tilman
>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>>>>
>>>>> BR
>>>>>
>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>>>>> veto?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
The problem with that approach is that GitHub’s pull requests can only be managed via GitHub’s issues interface, so we’re forced to use it. There’s no way to prevent GitHub users from opening and discussing issues in pull requests rather than on JIRA.
-- John
On 17 Sep 2014, at 21:58, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>
>
> Maruan Sahyoun
>
>> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>>
>> I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk where they can be built along with it.
>> It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, which is a good thing.
>>
>> I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It would be great if it did.
>>
>
> OK so lets try with the docs.
>
> To mention it for completness - the build process for the web site and the documentation contained within will still be done by the Apache CMS.
>
>> It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no file attachments), which is really a shame.
>>
>
> Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
>
>> -- John
>>
>>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Maruan,
>>>
>>> The examples only.
>>>
>>> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>>>
>>> Tilman
>>>
>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>>>
>>>> BR
>>>>
>>>> Maruan
>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>>>
>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>>>> veto?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>>> BR
>>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maruan
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
Maruan Sahyoun
> Am 18.09.2014 um 02:03 schrieb John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>:
>
> I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk where they can be built along with it.
> It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, which is a good thing.
>
> I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It would be great if it did.
>
OK so lets try with the docs.
To mention it for completness - the build process for the web site and the documentation contained within will still be done by the Apache CMS.
> It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no file attachments), which is really a shame.
>
Issue tracking would still be done using Jira. Same as for most other Apache projects
> -- John
>
>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Maruan,
>>
>> The examples only.
>>
>> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>>
>> Tilman
>>
>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>>
>>> BR
>>>
>>> Maruan
>>>
>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>>>
>>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>>
>>>> Tilman
>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>>> veto?
>>>>>
>>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tilman
>>>>> BR
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maruan
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
I agree with Tilman on this point, the examples need to stay in the trunk where they can be built along with it.
It’s very common to modify an example to take into account API changes. They’re also currently distributed along with the main PDFBox source bundle, which is a good thing.
I’d be surprised if anybody outside of the project wanted to contribute to the documentation, almost nobody seems to like writing it. Perhaps we could do this as a trial - see if it really increases contributions or not? It would be great if it did.
It’s worth adding that I’m (reluctantly) against moving PDFBox trunk over to GitHub because GitHub Issues is not powerful enough for our needs (e.g. no file attachments), which is really a shame.
-- John
On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:26, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Hi Maruan,
>
> The examples only.
>
> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>
> Tilman
>
> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>
>> BR
>>
>> Maruan
>>
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>
>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>
>>> Tilman
>>>
>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>> veto?
>>>>
>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>
>>>>> Tilman
>>>> BR
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maruan
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
The docs are part of the website
Currently I mean the cookbook, how to build the project, architecture ..
Maruan
Am 17.09.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
> Hi Maruan,
>
> The examples only.
>
> With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it (although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I don't mind.
>
> Tilman
>
> Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>>
>> BR
>>
>> Maruan
>>
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>
>>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>>
>>> Tilman
>>>
>>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>>> veto?
>>>>
>>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>>
>>>>> Tilman
>>>> BR
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maruan
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>.
Hi Maruan,
The examples only.
With "the docs" I assume you mean the website. I've never touched it
(although I might in the future), it isn't part of the project, so I
don't mind.
Tilman
Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
>
> BR
>
> Maruan
>
> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>
>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>
>> Tilman
>>
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>> veto?
>>>
>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>
>>>> Tilman
>>> BR
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maruan
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Am 17.09.2014 um 19:01 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
> is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
The examples could be tricky as they depend on the source code in the svn repo.
> BR
>
> Maruan
BR
Andreas
>
> Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>
>> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>>
>> Tilman
>>
>> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>>> veto?
>>>
>>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>>> the deep end after the migration.
>>>
>>>> Tilman
>>> BR
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maruan
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
is that because of the examples, the docs or both?
BR
Maruan
Am 17.09.2014 um 18:46 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
> It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be a pain". A "soft -1".
>
> Tilman
>
> Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>>> geschrieben:
>>>
>>>
>>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
>> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
>> veto?
>>
>> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
>> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
>> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
>> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
>> the deep end after the migration.
>>
>>> Tilman
>> BR
>> Andreas
>>
>>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>>
>>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>>
>>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> Maruan
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>.
It is a "I don't like it, but I can live with it but I think it might be
a pain". A "soft -1".
Tilman
Am 17.09.2014 um 08:40 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
> Hi,
>
>> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
>> geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
> Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
> veto?
>
> In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
> git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
> would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
> to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
> the deep end after the migration.
>
>> Tilman
> BR
> Andreas
>
>> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
>>> examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
>>> based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
>>> making it easier to contribute.
>>>
>>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>>
>>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
>>> but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>>> putting more effort into that.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Maruan
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Hi,
> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 16. September 2014 um 18:03
> geschrieben:
>
>
> -1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
Hmmm, is this just a "I don't like it, but I can live with it" or is it a clear
veto?
In a case of a veto, how about starting with moving parts of the docs to a new
git repo? IMO sooner or later the project will move from svn to git and that
would be a good opertunity to get used to the general usage of git and of course
to the special processes used here at the ASF so that we are not thrown in at
the deep end after the migration.
> Tilman
BR
Andreas
>
> Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and
> > examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git
> > based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
> > people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and
> > making it easier to contribute.
> >
> > Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
> > https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
> >
> > I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet
> > but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
> > putting more effort into that.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Maruan
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>.
-1, I don't like the idea to have different repository types.
Tilman
Am 16.09.2014 um 10:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
> Hi there,
>
> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation and examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a git based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication and making it easier to contribute.
>
> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>
> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary yet but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before putting more effort into that.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Maruan
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
Dear Santosh,
you can unregister using the link below.
https://pdfbox.apache.org/mailinglists.html
With kind regards
Maruan
> Am 17.09.2014 um 03:00 schrieb Santosh Arakeri <sa...@gmail.com>:
>
> Pl dont send me mail.
>> On 16 Sep 2014 13:52, "Maruan Sahyoun" <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation
>> and examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a
>> git based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
>> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication
>> and making it easier to contribute.
>>
>> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>>
>> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary
>> yet but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
>> putting more effort into that.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Maruan
Re: [DISCUSS] move documentation and examples to git
Posted by Santosh Arakeri <sa...@gmail.com>.
Pl dont send me mail.
On 16 Sep 2014 13:52, "Maruan Sahyoun" <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> in order to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation
> and examples I thought about the potential benefits of moving these to a
> git based repository instead of svn. The main idea behind that is to allow
> people to contribute via github opening another channel of communication
> and making it easier to contribute.
>
> Proposed names are pdfbox-docs and pdfbox-examples. Take a look at
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs for an example of that.
>
> I haven’t thought about all potential implications and changes necessary
> yet but wanted to get a first feedback about support for that idea before
> putting more effort into that.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Maruan