You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> on 2017/08/18 20:36:34 UTC
[DISCUSS] GitBox
I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label GitHub
pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close them if
they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better job of
reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked at in
a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url for
Accumulo will change.
Does anyone have objections to this?
Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Posted by Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>.
> What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last
time we had this discussion?
Accumulo is getting more pull requests via GitHub. I think GitBox will help
us develop a workflow so contributions are not ignored (which I think is
occurring). I don't want to specify what our workflow should be but it will
be easier to create one if we can label, assign, merge, and close pull
requests using the GitHub UI.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 4:51 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:
> What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last time
> we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think we
> should revisit though.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
> > Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
> > integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label GitHub
> > pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close them
> if
> > they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better job
> of
> > reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked at
> in
> > a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url for
> > Accumulo will change.
> >
> > Does anyone have objections to this?
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14955
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:39 PM Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> From the discussion, it seems like we're +2, at least, with no objections
> to work through. So, I'll go ahead and create the INFRA issue to migrate.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:14 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the ignorance!
>>
>> +0
>>
>> On 8/18/17 10:49 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> > Enabling GH issues is not automatic and would not accompany this
>> change. We
>> > would have to explicitly request that, separately, if we want to do
>> that in
>> > the future.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:30 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> My biggest concern was the confusion around the enabling of GH issues
>> >> that would accompany this.
>> >>
>> >> As long as we're not trying to do project management in two places
>> >> concurrently, I don't care either way.
>> >>
>> >> On 8/18/17 4:51 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>> >>> What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last
>> >> time
>> >>> we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you
>> think
>> >> we
>> >>> should revisit though.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
>> >>>> Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
>> >>>> integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label
>> >> GitHub
>> >>>> pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close
>> >> them if
>> >>>> they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better
>> >> job of
>> >>>> reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked
>> at
>> >> in
>> >>>> a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url
>> for
>> >>>> Accumulo will change.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Does anyone have objections to this?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> From the discussion, it seems like we're +2, at least, with no objections
> to work through. So, I'll go ahead and create the INFRA issue to migrate.
I Am also +1 on switching to gitbox.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:14 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the ignorance!
>>
>> +0
>>
>> On 8/18/17 10:49 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> > Enabling GH issues is not automatic and would not accompany this change.
>> We
>> > would have to explicitly request that, separately, if we want to do that
>> in
>> > the future.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:30 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> My biggest concern was the confusion around the enabling of GH issues
>> >> that would accompany this.
>> >>
>> >> As long as we're not trying to do project management in two places
>> >> concurrently, I don't care either way.
>> >>
>> >> On 8/18/17 4:51 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>> >>> What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last
>> >> time
>> >>> we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think
>> >> we
>> >>> should revisit though.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
>> >>>> Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
>> >>>> integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label
>> >> GitHub
>> >>>> pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close
>> >> them if
>> >>>> they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better
>> >> job of
>> >>>> reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked
>> at
>> >> in
>> >>>> a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url
>> for
>> >>>> Accumulo will change.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Does anyone have objections to this?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
From the discussion, it seems like we're +2, at least, with no objections
to work through. So, I'll go ahead and create the INFRA issue to migrate.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:14 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the ignorance!
>
> +0
>
> On 8/18/17 10:49 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > Enabling GH issues is not automatic and would not accompany this change.
> We
> > would have to explicitly request that, separately, if we want to do that
> in
> > the future.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:30 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> My biggest concern was the confusion around the enabling of GH issues
> >> that would accompany this.
> >>
> >> As long as we're not trying to do project management in two places
> >> concurrently, I don't care either way.
> >>
> >> On 8/18/17 4:51 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >>> What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last
> >> time
> >>> we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think
> >> we
> >>> should revisit though.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
> >>>> Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
> >>>> integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label
> >> GitHub
> >>>> pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close
> >> them if
> >>>> they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better
> >> job of
> >>>> reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked
> at
> >> in
> >>>> a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url
> for
> >>>> Accumulo will change.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does anyone have objections to this?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the ignorance!
+0
On 8/18/17 10:49 PM, Christopher wrote:
> Enabling GH issues is not automatic and would not accompany this change. We
> would have to explicitly request that, separately, if we want to do that in
> the future.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:30 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> My biggest concern was the confusion around the enabling of GH issues
>> that would accompany this.
>>
>> As long as we're not trying to do project management in two places
>> concurrently, I don't care either way.
>>
>> On 8/18/17 4:51 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>>> What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last
>> time
>>> we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think
>> we
>>> should revisit though.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
>>>> Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
>>>> integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label
>> GitHub
>>>> pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close
>> them if
>>>> they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better
>> job of
>>>> reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked at
>> in
>>>> a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url for
>>>> Accumulo will change.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have objections to this?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
Enabling GH issues is not automatic and would not accompany this change. We
would have to explicitly request that, separately, if we want to do that in
the future.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:30 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> My biggest concern was the confusion around the enabling of GH issues
> that would accompany this.
>
> As long as we're not trying to do project management in two places
> concurrently, I don't care either way.
>
> On 8/18/17 4:51 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last
> time
> > we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think
> we
> > should revisit though.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
> >> Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
> >> integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label
> GitHub
> >> pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close
> them if
> >> they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better
> job of
> >> reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked at
> in
> >> a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url for
> >> Accumulo will change.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have objections to this?
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
My biggest concern was the confusion around the enabling of GH issues
that would accompany this.
As long as we're not trying to do project management in two places
concurrently, I don't care either way.
On 8/18/17 4:51 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last time
> we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think we
> should revisit though.
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
>> Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
>> integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label GitHub
>> pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close them if
>> they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better job of
>> reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked at in
>> a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url for
>> Accumulo will change.
>>
>> Does anyone have objections to this?
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Posted by Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>.
What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last time
we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think we
should revisit though.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
> Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
> integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label GitHub
> pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close them if
> they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better job of
> reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked at in
> a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url for
> Accumulo will change.
>
> Does anyone have objections to this?
>
Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
I'm a big +1 to using GitBox. I think features far outweigh the one-time
cost of switching the URL of the apache remote.
FWIW, the command to update a remote is:
git remote set-url origin https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/accumulo
May also want to update your user name for credential.helper if you're
using that:
git config --global --add credential.
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/.username ctubbsii
Super easy.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 4:36 PM Mike Walch <mw...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for
> Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub
> integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label GitHub
> pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close them if
> they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better job of
> reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked at in
> a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url for
> Accumulo will change.
>
> Does anyone have objections to this?
>