You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mesos.apache.org by Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> on 2018/06/21 02:58:25 UTC
Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Hi folks,
Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving write
access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can merge PRs
directly on GitHub!
FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by filing an
INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling that
references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on our end
as well.
This has been one of the long requested features from several committers,
so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this route
(several projects seem to be already moving
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22>) too.
If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
Thanks,
Vinod
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
That’s right. Reviewboard will still be supported after the move. Just makes GH side if things better.
Thanks,
Vinod
> On Jun 23, 2018, at 4:48 AM, Chun-Hung Hsiao <ch...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> I also find GitHub hard to do code review. If we put multiple commits in a
> PR where each commit has a specific purpose, then after the author revises
> each commit, it would hard to see what has been updated between two
> revisions of "the same commit." If we put a review chain into multiple PRs
> where each PR has a specific purpose and make each revision a new commit,
> then it's hard to specify dependencies between PRs.
>
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:23 PM Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me> wrote:
>>
>> IIUC this wouldn't necessarily rule out RB reviews just better support for
>> Github PRs?
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:13 PM Andrew Schwartzmeyer <
>> andrew@schwartzmeyer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> GitHub PR code reviews have gotten _significantly_ better over the last
>>> two years. You can actually open addressable issues now (like
>>> ReviewBoard), and assign reviewers, and "officially" mark it as
>>> signed-off (ship-it) too. They used to suck so bad that I preferred
>>> inline email comments to PRs, but they've improved.
>>>
>>> On 06/22/2018 9:01 pm, James Peach wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 22, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this means we can add CI webhooks to the git repo?
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I'm hugely -1 on doing code reviews on GitHub. I'm cautiously
>>>> optimistic about other kinds of integration though.
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:45 PM, James Peach <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving
>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can
>>>>>>> merge
>>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>> directly on GitHub!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you proposing that we move to Github generally?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by
>>>>>>> filing
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>> end
>>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been one of the long requested features from several
>>>>>>> committers,
>>>>>>> so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this
>>>>>> route
>>>>>>> (several projects seem to be already moving
>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22
>>> )
>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Vinod
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Chun-Hung Hsiao <ch...@mesosphere.io>.
I also find GitHub hard to do code review. If we put multiple commits in a
PR where each commit has a specific purpose, then after the author revises
each commit, it would hard to see what has been updated between two
revisions of "the same commit." If we put a review chain into multiple PRs
where each PR has a specific purpose and make each revision a new commit,
then it's hard to specify dependencies between PRs.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:23 PM Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me> wrote:
> IIUC this wouldn't necessarily rule out RB reviews just better support for
> Github PRs?
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:13 PM Andrew Schwartzmeyer <
> andrew@schwartzmeyer.com> wrote:
>
> > GitHub PR code reviews have gotten _significantly_ better over the last
> > two years. You can actually open addressable issues now (like
> > ReviewBoard), and assign reviewers, and "officially" mark it as
> > signed-off (ship-it) too. They used to suck so bad that I preferred
> > inline email comments to PRs, but they've improved.
> >
> > On 06/22/2018 9:01 pm, James Peach wrote:
> > >> On Jun 22, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> Does this means we can add CI webhooks to the git repo?
> > >
> > > FWIW, I'm hugely -1 on doing code reviews on GitHub. I'm cautiously
> > > optimistic about other kinds of integration though.
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:45 PM, James Peach <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Jun 20, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi folks,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving
> > >>>> write
> > >>>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can
> > >>>> merge
> > >>> PRs
> > >>>> directly on GitHub!
> > >>>
> > >>> Are you proposing that we move to Github generally?
> > >>>
> > >>>> FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by
> > >>>> filing
> > >>> an
> > >>>> INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling
> > >>>> that
> > >>>> references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on
> > >>>> our
> > >>> end
> > >>>> as well.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This has been one of the long requested features from several
> > >>>> committers,
> > >>>> so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this
> > >>> route
> > >>>> (several projects seem to be already moving
> > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22
> >)
> > >>> too.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Vinod
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me>.
IIUC this wouldn't necessarily rule out RB reviews just better support for
Github PRs?
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:13 PM Andrew Schwartzmeyer <
andrew@schwartzmeyer.com> wrote:
> GitHub PR code reviews have gotten _significantly_ better over the last
> two years. You can actually open addressable issues now (like
> ReviewBoard), and assign reviewers, and "officially" mark it as
> signed-off (ship-it) too. They used to suck so bad that I preferred
> inline email comments to PRs, but they've improved.
>
> On 06/22/2018 9:01 pm, James Peach wrote:
> >> On Jun 22, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Does this means we can add CI webhooks to the git repo?
> >
> > FWIW, I'm hugely -1 on doing code reviews on GitHub. I'm cautiously
> > optimistic about other kinds of integration though.
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:45 PM, James Peach <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Jun 20, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving
> >>>> write
> >>>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can
> >>>> merge
> >>> PRs
> >>>> directly on GitHub!
> >>>
> >>> Are you proposing that we move to Github generally?
> >>>
> >>>> FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by
> >>>> filing
> >>> an
> >>>> INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling
> >>>> that
> >>>> references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on
> >>>> our
> >>> end
> >>>> as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> This has been one of the long requested features from several
> >>>> committers,
> >>>> so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this
> >>> route
> >>>> (several projects seem to be already moving
> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22>)
> >>> too.
> >>>>
> >>>> If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Vinod
> >>>
> >>>
>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Andrew Schwartzmeyer <an...@schwartzmeyer.com>.
GitHub PR code reviews have gotten _significantly_ better over the last
two years. You can actually open addressable issues now (like
ReviewBoard), and assign reviewers, and "officially" mark it as
signed-off (ship-it) too. They used to suck so bad that I preferred
inline email comments to PRs, but they've improved.
On 06/22/2018 9:01 pm, James Peach wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Does this means we can add CI webhooks to the git repo?
>
> FWIW, I'm hugely -1 on doing code reviews on GitHub. I'm cautiously
> optimistic about other kinds of integration though.
>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:45 PM, James Peach <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 20, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving
>>>> write
>>>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can
>>>> merge
>>> PRs
>>>> directly on GitHub!
>>>
>>> Are you proposing that we move to Github generally?
>>>
>>>> FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by
>>>> filing
>>> an
>>>> INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling
>>>> that
>>>> references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on
>>>> our
>>> end
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>> This has been one of the long requested features from several
>>>> committers,
>>>> so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this
>>> route
>>>> (several projects seem to be already moving
>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22>)
>>> too.
>>>>
>>>> If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vinod
>>>
>>>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by James Peach <jo...@gmail.com>.
> On Jun 22, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Does this means we can add CI webhooks to the git repo?
FWIW, I'm hugely -1 on doing code reviews on GitHub. I'm cautiously optimistic about other kinds of integration though.
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:45 PM, James Peach <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving write
>>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can merge
>> PRs
>>> directly on GitHub!
>>
>> Are you proposing that we move to Github generally?
>>
>>> FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by filing
>> an
>>> INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling that
>>> references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on our
>> end
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> This has been one of the long requested features from several committers,
>>> so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this
>> route
>>> (several projects seem to be already moving
>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22>)
>> too.
>>>
>>> If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vinod
>>
>>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
+1
Does this means we can add CI webhooks to the git repo?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:45 PM, James Peach <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving write
> > access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can merge
> PRs
> > directly on GitHub!
>
> Are you proposing that we move to Github generally?
>
> > FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by filing
> an
> > INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling that
> > references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on our
> end
> > as well.
> >
> > This has been one of the long requested features from several committers,
> > so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this
> route
> > (several projects seem to be already moving
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22>)
> too.
> >
> > If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vinod
>
>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by James Peach <jo...@gmail.com>.
> On Jun 20, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving write
> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can merge PRs
> directly on GitHub!
Are you proposing that we move to Github generally?
> FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by filing an
> INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling that
> references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on our end
> as well.
>
> This has been one of the long requested features from several committers,
> so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this route
> (several projects seem to be already moving
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22>) too.
>
> If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
>
> Thanks,
> Vinod
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>.
Filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16832
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:11 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> The main reason for moving to gitbox is to better avail GitHub integration
> (i.e., closing stale PRs, directly merge from GH if wanted, lower barrier
> for entry for newbies to contribute, better integration with CI etc).
> AFAICT, this will necessitate us having write access to our GH repo.
>
> Since we need write access to GH, I'm wondering if there is a strong
> reason for us to have write access to the ASF repo as well? Because having
> two writable repos could be painful (slow sync causing merge conflicts that
> need to be resolved), I'm trying to see if we can avoid that if possible.
> And this is not set in stone, we can always open up write to both repos in
> the future if we want/need to (e.g., GH goes poof).
>
> And just to be clear, making the GH repo the source of truth doesn't
> change our relationship with ASF. GH is just a hosting location with better
> tooling that we don't need to reinvent and/or maintain. All our existing
> tooling should work just fine.
>
> HTH,
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:43 PM Benjamin Bannier <
> benjamin.bannier@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi Vinod,
>>
>> We (Jie, James, me) briefly discussed this topic and some implication
>> over slack:
>>
>> * I mentioned I was surprised how a vote on _moving the project repo to
>> ASF gitbox_ turned into _moving the project repo to Github_.
>> * Jie mentioned that this would simplify (enable?) how we could close
>> Github PRs. He also mentioned infra reliability.
>> * I mentioned that I believed that while it was in ASF’s interest to
>> support us as long as ASF was around, I wasn’t sure the same would hold for
>> Github.
>> * I wrote that personally I’d prefer improving limitations in our tooling
>> over moving to Github.
>>
>> That said, I’d prefer if we’d keep an ASF infra repo as source of truth
>> like agreed on in the vote. We should get a clearer understanding of the
>> limitations and limits of what ASF can provide before considering Github as
>> source of truth. I personally do not yet see a true need.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Benjamin
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 23, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge
>> >> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-
>> >> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>"
>> >> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits.
>> This
>> >> will be in parity with our RB based workflow.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sounds good! And we can "ban" the rest in github setting.
>> >
>> > 2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos as
>> >> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and
>> >> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid
>> >> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to
>> both
>> >> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization.
>> >
>> >
>> > +1 on making only github writable.
>> >
>> > 3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror "
>> >> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when
>> posting
>> >> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point
>> to
>> >> github too?
>> >
>> >
>> > +1 on switching to github
>> >
>> > - Jie
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Few things we need to finalize before the gitbox move.
>> >>
>> >> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge
>> >> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-
>> >> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>"
>> >> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits.
>> This
>> >> will be in parity with our RB based workflow.
>> >>
>> >> 2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos
>> as
>> >> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and
>> >> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid
>> >> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to
>> both
>> >> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization.
>> >>
>> >> 3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror "
>> >> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when
>> posting
>> >> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point
>> to
>> >> github too?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:26 PM Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Vinod, can you start a VOTE thread per our discussion during the
>> >>> committer's meeting.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gastón Kleiman <gaston@mesosphere.io
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:59 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi folks,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving
>> >> write
>> >>>>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can
>> >> merge
>> >>>> PRs
>> >>>>> directly on GitHub!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1. Not only does it allow to merge PRs directly on GitHub, but it
>> also
>> >>>> allows committers to close stale PRs!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Gastón
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>.
Hi Benjamin,
The main reason for moving to gitbox is to better avail GitHub integration
(i.e., closing stale PRs, directly merge from GH if wanted, lower barrier
for entry for newbies to contribute, better integration with CI etc).
AFAICT, this will necessitate us having write access to our GH repo.
Since we need write access to GH, I'm wondering if there is a strong reason
for us to have write access to the ASF repo as well? Because having two
writable repos could be painful (slow sync causing merge conflicts that
need to be resolved), I'm trying to see if we can avoid that if possible.
And this is not set in stone, we can always open up write to both repos in
the future if we want/need to (e.g., GH goes poof).
And just to be clear, making the GH repo the source of truth doesn't change
our relationship with ASF. GH is just a hosting location with better
tooling that we don't need to reinvent and/or maintain. All our existing
tooling should work just fine.
HTH,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:43 PM Benjamin Bannier <
benjamin.bannier@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> We (Jie, James, me) briefly discussed this topic and some implication over
> slack:
>
> * I mentioned I was surprised how a vote on _moving the project repo to
> ASF gitbox_ turned into _moving the project repo to Github_.
> * Jie mentioned that this would simplify (enable?) how we could close
> Github PRs. He also mentioned infra reliability.
> * I mentioned that I believed that while it was in ASF’s interest to
> support us as long as ASF was around, I wasn’t sure the same would hold for
> Github.
> * I wrote that personally I’d prefer improving limitations in our tooling
> over moving to Github.
>
> That said, I’d prefer if we’d keep an ASF infra repo as source of truth
> like agreed on in the vote. We should get a clearer understanding of the
> limitations and limits of what ASF can provide before considering Github as
> source of truth. I personally do not yet see a true need.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Benjamin
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge
> >> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-
> >> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>"
> >> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits.
> This
> >> will be in parity with our RB based workflow.
> >
> >
> > Sounds good! And we can "ban" the rest in github setting.
> >
> > 2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos as
> >> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and
> >> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid
> >> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to both
> >> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization.
> >
> >
> > +1 on making only github writable.
> >
> > 3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror "
> >> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when
> posting
> >> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point to
> >> github too?
> >
> >
> > +1 on switching to github
> >
> > - Jie
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Few things we need to finalize before the gitbox move.
> >>
> >> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge
> >> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-
> >> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>"
> >> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits.
> This
> >> will be in parity with our RB based workflow.
> >>
> >> 2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos as
> >> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and
> >> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid
> >> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to both
> >> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization.
> >>
> >> 3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror "
> >> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when
> posting
> >> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point to
> >> github too?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:26 PM Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Vinod, can you start a VOTE thread per our discussion during the
> >>> committer's meeting.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gastón Kleiman <ga...@mesosphere.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:59 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving
> >> write
> >>>>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can
> >> merge
> >>>> PRs
> >>>>> directly on GitHub!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> +1. Not only does it allow to merge PRs directly on GitHub, but it
> also
> >>>> allows committers to close stale PRs!
> >>>>
> >>>> -Gastón
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Benjamin Bannier <be...@mesosphere.io>.
Hi Vinod,
We (Jie, James, me) briefly discussed this topic and some implication over slack:
* I mentioned I was surprised how a vote on _moving the project repo to ASF gitbox_ turned into _moving the project repo to Github_.
* Jie mentioned that this would simplify (enable?) how we could close Github PRs. He also mentioned infra reliability.
* I mentioned that I believed that while it was in ASF’s interest to support us as long as ASF was around, I wasn’t sure the same would hold for Github.
* I wrote that personally I’d prefer improving limitations in our tooling over moving to Github.
That said, I’d prefer if we’d keep an ASF infra repo as source of truth like agreed on in the vote. We should get a clearer understanding of the limitations and limits of what ASF can provide before considering Github as source of truth. I personally do not yet see a true need.
Cheers,
Benjamin
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge
>> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-
>> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>"
>> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits. This
>> will be in parity with our RB based workflow.
>
>
> Sounds good! And we can "ban" the rest in github setting.
>
> 2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos as
>> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and
>> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid
>> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to both
>> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization.
>
>
> +1 on making only github writable.
>
> 3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror "
>> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when posting
>> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point to
>> github too?
>
>
> +1 on switching to github
>
> - Jie
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Few things we need to finalize before the gitbox move.
>>
>> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge
>> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-
>> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>"
>> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits. This
>> will be in parity with our RB based workflow.
>>
>> 2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos as
>> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and
>> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid
>> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to both
>> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization.
>>
>> 3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror "
>> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when posting
>> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point to
>> github too?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:26 PM Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Vinod, can you start a VOTE thread per our discussion during the
>>> committer's meeting.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gastón Kleiman <ga...@mesosphere.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:59 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving
>> write
>>>>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can
>> merge
>>>> PRs
>>>>> directly on GitHub!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1. Not only does it allow to merge PRs directly on GitHub, but it also
>>>> allows committers to close stale PRs!
>>>>
>>>> -Gastón
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
>
> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge
> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-
> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>"
> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits. This
> will be in parity with our RB based workflow.
Sounds good! And we can "ban" the rest in github setting.
2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos as
> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and
> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid
> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to both
> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization.
+1 on making only github writable.
3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror "
> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when posting
> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point to
> github too?
+1 on switching to github
- Jie
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Few things we need to finalize before the gitbox move.
>
> 1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge
> <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-
> merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>"
> strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits. This
> will be in parity with our RB based workflow.
>
> 2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos as
> writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and
> make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid
> conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to both
> repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization.
>
> 3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror "
> git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when posting
> reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point to
> github too?
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:26 PM Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vinod, can you start a VOTE thread per our discussion during the
> > committer's meeting.
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gastón Kleiman <ga...@mesosphere.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:59 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving
> write
> > > > access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can
> merge
> > > PRs
> > > > directly on GitHub!
> > > >
> > >
> > > +1. Not only does it allow to merge PRs directly on GitHub, but it also
> > > allows committers to close stale PRs!
> > >
> > > -Gastón
> > >
> >
>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>.
Few things we need to finalize before the gitbox move.
1) Merge strategy on GH. I think we want to use the "rebase and merge
<https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-merges/#rebase-and-merge-your-pull-request-commits>"
strategy only (i.e., disable other strategies) to avoid merge commits. This
will be in parity with our RB based workflow.
2) One writable repo. Do we want to keep both github and gitbox repos as
writable repos or do we want to make github the only writable repo (and
make gibox a read only mirror)? One advantage is that this will avoid
conflicts (that need to be manually resolved) when people commit to both
repos independently and there is slowness in synchronization.
3) Our RB server currently points to yet another mirror "
git.apache.org/mesos" which has occasionally given us issues when posting
reviews due to synchronization issues. Should we move our RB to point to
github too?
Thanks,
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:26 PM Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vinod, can you start a VOTE thread per our discussion during the
> committer's meeting.
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gastón Kleiman <ga...@mesosphere.io>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:59 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving write
> > > access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can merge
> > PRs
> > > directly on GitHub!
> > >
> >
> > +1. Not only does it allow to merge PRs directly on GitHub, but it also
> > allows committers to close stale PRs!
> >
> > -Gastón
> >
>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Vinod, can you start a VOTE thread per our discussion during the
committer's meeting.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gastón Kleiman <ga...@mesosphere.io>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:59 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving write
> > access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can merge
> PRs
> > directly on GitHub!
> >
>
> +1. Not only does it allow to merge PRs directly on GitHub, but it also
> allows committers to close stale PRs!
>
> -Gastón
>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Gastón Kleiman <ga...@mesosphere.io>.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:59 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving write
> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can merge PRs
> directly on GitHub!
>
+1. Not only does it allow to merge PRs directly on GitHub, but it also
allows committers to close stale PRs!
-Gastón
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Andrew Schwartzmeyer <an...@schwartzmeyer.com>.
This could mean PRs that require CI to pass before check-ins! This would
be fantastic...
+1
On 06/20/2018 8:27 pm, Kapil Arya wrote:
> +1.
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:59 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving write
>> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can
>> merge PRs
>> directly on GitHub!
>>
>> FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by
>> filing an
>> INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling that
>> references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on
>> our end
>> as well.
>>
>> This has been one of the long requested features from several
>> committers,
>> so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this
>> route
>> (several projects seem to be already moving
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22>)
>> too.
>>
>> If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vinod
>>
Re: Getting write access to our GitHub repo
Posted by Kapil Arya <ka...@mesosphere.io>.
+1.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:59 PM Vinod Kone <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Looks like ASF now supports <https://gitbox.apache.org/> giving write
> access to committers for their GitHub mirrors, which means we can merge PRs
> directly on GitHub!
>
> FWICT, this requires us moving our repo to a new gitbox server by filing an
> INFRA ticket. We probably need to update our CI and other tooling that
> references our git repo directly, so there will be work involved on our end
> as well.
>
> This has been one of the long requested features from several committers,
> so I'm gauging interest to see if folks think we should go down this route
> (several projects seem to be already moving
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gitbox%22>) too.
>
> If there is enough interest, we could start a vote.
>
> Thanks,
> Vinod
>