You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jena.apache.org by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> on 2018/12/12 18:25:31 UTC
website to git Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
I'd like to move the site.
On 12/12/2018 15:25, ajs6f wrote:
> I'm all in favor, and in favor of moving the site to git at the same time. Indeed, we've discussed that latter before, but done nothing.
>
> Bruno-- I think you had some thoughts about the site question? I seem to remember that you did such a migration with another Apache project?
Wasn't one of the issues that CMS is tied to svn for publication? Or am
I misremembering?
If so, then then move needs the website converting (Jekyll?).
If that's true we could get a git repo for the new site, work on it as
and when, then swap the live site.
Does someone want to see this through?
Andy
>
> ajs6f
>
>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>>> Hi Andy,
>>> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice.
>>> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019.
>>
>> I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA because they asked nicely.
>>
>>> It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago but I don’t recall a resolution.
>>> I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn.
>>> Regards,
>>> Chris
>>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Committers -
>>>>
>>>> Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly?
>>>>
>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts"
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>> I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here
>>>>> "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes"
>>>>> unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your Apache account (which I do).
>>>>> The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points.
>>>>> JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad!
>>>>> We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens.
>>>>> For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales.
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote.
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> But please, not go back to SVN :-)
>>>>> On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE
>>>>>> DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Apache projects,
>>>>>> I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the
>>>>>> git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming
>>>>>> months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which
>>>>>> includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF
>>>>>> commit access via gitbox.apache.org.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Why this move? ##
>>>>>> The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the
>>>>>> hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we
>>>>>> have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to
>>>>>> ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the
>>>>>> underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing
>>>>>> will change in your workflow other than added features and access to
>>>>>> GitHub.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Timeframe for relocation ##
>>>>>> Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move
>>>>>> their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary
>>>>>> timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects
>>>>>> are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After
>>>>>> this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within
>>>>>> one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)
>>>>>> - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos
>>>>>> over to gitbox (as stated, this is highly automated and will take
>>>>>> between a minute and an hour, depending on the size and number of
>>>>>> your repositories)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To sum up the preliminary timeline;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - December 9th 2018 -January 9th 2019: Voluntary (coordinated)
>>>>>> relocation
>>>>>> - January 9th -February 6th: Mandated (coordinated) relocation
>>>>>> - February 7th: All remaining repositories are mass migrated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This timeline may change to accommodate various scenarios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Using GitHub with ASF repositories ##
>>>>>> When your project has moved, you are free to use either the ASF
>>>>>> repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development
>>>>>> and code pushes. To be able to use GitHub, please follow the primer
>>>>>> at: https://reference.apache.org/committer/github
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We appreciate your understanding of this issue, and hope that your
>>>>>> project can coordinate voluntarily moving your repositories in a
>>>>>> timely manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All settings, such as commit mail targets, issue linking, PR
>>>>>> notification schemes etc will automatically be migrated to gitbox as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With regards, Daniel on behalf of ASF Infra.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS:For inquiries, please reply to users@infra.apache.org, not your
>>>>>> project's dev list :-).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
Re: website to git Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
Posted by "Bruno P. Kinoshita" <br...@yahoo.com.br.INVALID>.
Coming back from a recess, so I think issues like these are easier for me to help with - and I did something similar before.
It shouldn't be too complicated, but not sure if we can use Jekyll. As far as I know, GitHub pages runs Ruby + Jekyll for every commit to the GitHub pages branch. Apache's gitpubsub may not have Ruby or the Jekyll gem to build the website (I think that's why we used JBake in OpenNLP, but it had been decided before I started working on the issue).
Cheers
Bruno
________________________________
From: Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
To: dev@jena.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2018 7:25 AM
Subject: website to git Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
I'd like to move the site.
On 12/12/2018 15:25, ajs6f wrote:
> I'm all in favor, and in favor of moving the site to git at the same time. Indeed, we've discussed that latter before, but done nothing.
>
> Bruno-- I think you had some thoughts about the site question? I seem to remember that you did such a migration with another Apache project?
Wasn't one of the issues that CMS is tied to svn for publication? Or am
I misremembering?
If so, then then move needs the website converting (Jekyll?).
If that's true we could get a git repo for the new site, work on it as
and when, then swap the live site.
Does someone want to see this through?
Andy
>
> ajs6f
>
>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>>> Hi Andy,
>>> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice.
>>> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019.
>>
>> I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA because they asked nicely.
>>
>>> It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago but I don’t recall a resolution.
>>> I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn.
>>> Regards,
>>> Chris
>>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Committers -
>>>>
>>>> Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly?
>>>>
>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts"
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>> I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here
>>>>> "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes"
>>>>> unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your Apache account (which I do).
>>>>> The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points.
>>>>> JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad!
>>>>> We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens.
>>>>> For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales.
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote.
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> But please, not go back to SVN :-)
>>>>> On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE
>>>>>> DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Apache projects,
>>>>>> I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the
>>>>>> git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming
>>>>>> months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which
>>>>>> includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF
>>>>>> commit access via gitbox.apache.org.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Why this move? ##
>>>>>> The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the
>>>>>> hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we
>>>>>> have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to
>>>>>> ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the
>>>>>> underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing
>>>>>> will change in your workflow other than added features and access to
>>>>>> GitHub.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Timeframe for relocation ##
>>>>>> Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move
>>>>>> their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary
>>>>>> timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects
>>>>>> are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After
>>>>>> this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within
>>>>>> one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)
>>>>>> - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos
>>>>>> over to gitbox (as stated, this is highly automated and will take
>>>>>> between a minute and an hour, depending on the size and number of
>>>>>> your repositories)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To sum up the preliminary timeline;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - December 9th 2018 -January 9th 2019: Voluntary (coordinated)
>>>>>> relocation
>>>>>> - January 9th -February 6th: Mandated (coordinated) relocation
>>>>>> - February 7th: All remaining repositories are mass migrated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This timeline may change to accommodate various scenarios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Using GitHub with ASF repositories ##
>>>>>> When your project has moved, you are free to use either the ASF
>>>>>> repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development
>>>>>> and code pushes. To be able to use GitHub, please follow the primer
>>>>>> at: https://reference.apache.org/committer/github
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We appreciate your understanding of this issue, and hope that your
>>>>>> project can coordinate voluntarily moving your repositories in a
>>>>>> timely manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All settings, such as commit mail targets, issue linking, PR
>>>>>> notification schemes etc will automatically be migrated to gitbox as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With regards, Daniel on behalf of ASF Infra.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS:For inquiries, please reply to users@infra.apache.org, not your
>>>>>> project's dev list :-).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
Re: website to git Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
Posted by ajs6f <aj...@apache.org>.
Replies inline.
ajs6f
> On Dec 12, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I'd like to move the site.
+1!
> On 12/12/2018 15:25, ajs6f wrote:
>> I'm all in favor, and in favor of moving the site to git at the same time. Indeed, we've discussed that latter before, but done nothing.
>> Bruno-- I think you had some thoughts about the site question? I seem to remember that you did such a migration with another Apache project?
>
> Wasn't one of the issues that CMS is tied to svn for publication? Or am I misremembering?
I don't remember, which means nothing. :grin: It very well may be. See next point.
> If so, then then move needs the website converting (Jekyll?).
The last time we talked about this, that was an assumption (moving to a new build tool). I seem to recall that Bruno offered some experience from his work doing the same thing for another project.
> If that's true we could get a git repo for the new site, work on it as and when, then swap the live site.
>
> Does someone want to see this through?
I would, albeit _slowly_, if I knew anything about the prospective build tool, or if someone else who does can be available for a bit of help.
> Andy
>
>> ajs6f
>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> Hi Andy,
>>>> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice.
>>>> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019.
>>>
>>> I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA because they asked nicely.
>>>
>>>> It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago but I don’t recall a resolution.
>>>> I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Chris
>>>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Committers -
>>>>>
>>>>> Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts"
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>> I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here
>>>>>> "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes"
>>>>>> unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your Apache account (which I do).
>>>>>> The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points.
>>>>>> JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad!
>>>>>> We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens.
>>>>>> For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales.
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote.
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> But please, not go back to SVN :-)
>>>>>> On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE
>>>>>>> DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Apache projects,
>>>>>>> I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the
>>>>>>> git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming
>>>>>>> months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which
>>>>>>> includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF
>>>>>>> commit access via gitbox.apache.org.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ## Why this move? ##
>>>>>>> The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the
>>>>>>> hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we
>>>>>>> have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to
>>>>>>> ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the
>>>>>>> underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing
>>>>>>> will change in your workflow other than added features and access to
>>>>>>> GitHub.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ## Timeframe for relocation ##
>>>>>>> Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move
>>>>>>> their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary
>>>>>>> timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects
>>>>>>> are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After
>>>>>>> this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within
>>>>>>> one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)
>>>>>>> - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos
>>>>>>> over to gitbox (as stated, this is highly automated and will take
>>>>>>> between a minute and an hour, depending on the size and number of
>>>>>>> your repositories)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To sum up the preliminary timeline;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - December 9th 2018 -January 9th 2019: Voluntary (coordinated)
>>>>>>> relocation
>>>>>>> - January 9th -February 6th: Mandated (coordinated) relocation
>>>>>>> - February 7th: All remaining repositories are mass migrated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This timeline may change to accommodate various scenarios.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ## Using GitHub with ASF repositories ##
>>>>>>> When your project has moved, you are free to use either the ASF
>>>>>>> repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development
>>>>>>> and code pushes. To be able to use GitHub, please follow the primer
>>>>>>> at: https://reference.apache.org/committer/github
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We appreciate your understanding of this issue, and hope that your
>>>>>>> project can coordinate voluntarily moving your repositories in a
>>>>>>> timely manner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All settings, such as commit mail targets, issue linking, PR
>>>>>>> notification schemes etc will automatically be migrated to gitbox as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With regards, Daniel on behalf of ASF Infra.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS:For inquiries, please reply to users@infra.apache.org, not your
>>>>>>> project's dev list :-).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>