You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwhisk.apache.org by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> on 2016/12/20 22:15:36 UTC
Moving forward with repositories
Hi all
Given misunderstandings on what it means to be able to stay on GitHub we are not ready yet to transfer repositories from the GitHub OpenWhisk organisation to the GitHub Apache organisation thereby renaming the repositories according to the naming conventions.
The inhibitors for moving quickly basically are:
- Custom developer processes for pull requests
- A number of business critical CI/CD processes
Particularly reconfiguring the CI/CD process will take some time.
Yet, we understand the desires and policies of ASF to properly manage the source code repositories.
In the interest of moving forward, the proposed high level plan is:
(0) Create a documentation page on commit and contribue processes
(as proposed by Matt along the lines of Cordova’s Contributor
Guidelines [1])
(1) Transfer the repositories to the Apache GitHub organisation
and setup required mail notifications for commits/pull requests
and issue updates
(2) Fork the apache/incubator-openwhisk-* repositories to the
OpenWhisk organization under their previous names:
(2a) Repositories are read-only
(2b) Repositories are synced from their fork source
User processes have to be adapted as soon as the repositories have been transferred.
Technical process should be adapted to the new processes within 3 weeks from the transfer of the repositories (unforeseen difficulties to be discussed).
With the transfer the wikis and issues are transferred as well. For Wikis this is not a big deal. For issues, there are two things to consider:
(a) how do we deal with bots reacting to issue events ?
(b) how do we deal with Zenhub boards ? Can we live without them for a moment ?
Ideally we would start implementing this plan over the holidays so that repositories are ready and in place after that. According to Greg Infra is staffed to work on this.
@Greg: Would it be an option to have the read-only forks in the old locations for a certain time ? Markus Thoemmes is an admin of the current repositories available this week.
@Project: Would that work for you ?
@Markus Thoemmes: May I ask you to work with Greg to do the necessary ?
Regards
Felix
[1] http://cordova.apache.org/contribute/contribute_guidelines.html
Re: Moving forward with repositories
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Indeed. And as Jason pointed out it is free for use on open source projects. From this side we are good for everyone to use. What we would need is just some how-to about the intent of the ZenHub use as, of course, this will become the property of the project and as such has to follow the project’s development processes which should as well be documented.
The thing to discover, though, is what happens to ZenHub project metadata if the underlying repository is transferred away.
Regards
Felix
> Am 21.12.2016 um 07:29 schrieb Isabel Drost-Fromm <is...@apache.org>:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 07:05:25AM +0100, Michael M Behrendt wrote:
>> it;s true that no repo will break per se -- however, given how we're
>> working, we have a strong dependency against zenhub for organizing our
>> work. so if there is no zenhub, it would break our dev workflow
>
> Maybe a good reason to use the quiet holidays (or the first weeks of next year) to figure out how the then existing Github Repo under the Apache Org works with Zenhub?
>
> If Zenhub is so useful to current developers, it should be open to everyone who wants to contribute to OpenWhisk.
>
> Isabel
>
>
> --
> Sorry for any typos: Mail was typed in vim, written in mutt, via ssh (most likely involving some kind of mobile connection only.)
Re: Moving forward with repositories
Posted by Isabel Drost-Fromm <is...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 07:05:25AM +0100, Michael M Behrendt wrote:
> it;s true that no repo will break per se -- however, given how we're
> working, we have a strong dependency against zenhub for organizing our
> work. so if there is no zenhub, it would break our dev workflow
Maybe a good reason to use the quiet holidays (or the first weeks of next year) to figure out how the then existing Github Repo under the Apache Org works with Zenhub?
If Zenhub is so useful to current developers, it should be open to everyone who wants to contribute to OpenWhisk.
Isabel
--
Sorry for any typos: Mail was typed in vim, written in mutt, via ssh (most likely involving some kind of mobile connection only.)
Re: Moving forward with repositories
Posted by Michael M Behrendt <Mi...@de.ibm.com>.
it;s true that no repo will break per se -- however, given how we're
working, we have a strong dependency against zenhub for organizing our
work. so if there is no zenhub, it would break our dev workflow
From: Jason Lengstorf <ja...@lengstorf.com>
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date: 12/21/2016 01:52 AM
Subject: Re: Moving forward with repositories
I can't respond to anything else, but ZenHub is just a convenience for
development. It makes it easier to see what's going on with issues at a
glance,
but it's by no means required. (At least, not for the openwhisk.org
website
repo. I can't speak for other repos specifically, but no repo will BREAK
without
ZenHub ? it's a GitHub add-on.)
That being said, ZenHub is also free for open source projects:
https://www.zenhub.com/blog/open-source/
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 4:40 PM, Daniel Gruno humbedooh@apache.org
wrote:
Comments inline...
On 2016-12-20 23:15 (+0100), Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Given misunderstandings on what it means to be able to stay on GitHub we
are
not ready yet to transfer repositories from the GitHub OpenWhisk
organisation to
the GitHub Apache organisation thereby renaming the repositories according
to
the naming conventions.
>
> The inhibitors for moving quickly basically are:
> - Custom developer processes for pull requests
What specifically is the concern here? If infrastructure knew the
specifics, we
could discuss what you need and how we may solve it.
> - A number of business critical CI/CD processes
This should ideally have no bearing on a vendor-neutral FLOSS project,
unless
'business' means something different here. Can you elaborate on this?
>
> Particularly reconfiguring the CI/CD process will take some time.
>
> Yet, we understand the desires and policies of ASF to properly manage
the
source code repositories.
>
> In the interest of moving forward, the proposed high level plan is:
>
> (0) Create a documentation page on commit and contribue processes
> (as proposed by Matt along the lines of Cordovaâs Contributor
> Guidelines [1])
> (1) Transfer the repositories to the Apache GitHub organisation
> and setup required mail notifications for commits/pull requests
> and issue updates
Setup is handled by infrastructure on adoption of the repositories. The
default
is to route commits to commits@openwhisk and PR/Issues to dev@openwhisk
(or
issues@ if you have such a list)
> (2) Fork the apache/incubator-openwhisk-* repositories to the
> OpenWhisk organization under their previous names:
> (2a) Repositories are read-only
> (2b) Repositories are synced from their fork source
This would remove any redirects that would otherwise be in place, but
that's
your prerogative :)
>
> User processes have to be adapted as soon as the repositories have been
transferred.
>
> Technical process should be adapted to the new processes within 3 weeks
from
the transfer of the repositories (unforeseen difficulties to be
discussed).
>
> With the transfer the wikis and issues are transferred as well. For
Wikis this
is not a big deal. For issues, there are two things to consider:
>
> (a) how do we deal with bots reacting to issue events ?
> (b) how do we deal with Zenhub boards ? Can we live without them for a
moment
?
Can you explain what Zenhub boards are, and how they play into the
development?
>
> Ideally we would start implementing this plan over the holidays so that
repositories are ready and in place after that. According to Greg Infra is
staffed to work on this.
>
> @Greg: Would it be an option to have the read-only forks in the old
locations
for a certain time ? Markus Thoemmes is an admin of the current
repositories
available this week.
>
> @Project: Would that work for you ?
>
> @Markus Thoemmes: May I ask you to work with Greg to do the necessary ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] http://cordova.apache.org/contribute/contribute_guidelines.html
>
Re: Moving forward with repositories
Posted by Jason Lengstorf <ja...@lengstorf.com>.
I can't respond to anything else, but ZenHub is just a convenience for
development. It makes it easier to see what's going on with issues at a glance,
but it's by no means required. (At least, not for the openwhisk.org website
repo. I can't speak for other repos specifically, but no repo will BREAK without
ZenHub — it's a GitHub add-on.)
That being said, ZenHub is also free for open source projects:
https://www.zenhub.com/blog/open-source/
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 4:40 PM, Daniel Gruno humbedooh@apache.org
wrote:
Comments inline...
On 2016-12-20 23:15 (+0100), Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Given misunderstandings on what it means to be able to stay on GitHub we are
not ready yet to transfer repositories from the GitHub OpenWhisk organisation to
the GitHub Apache organisation thereby renaming the repositories according to
the naming conventions.
>
> The inhibitors for moving quickly basically are:
> - Custom developer processes for pull requests
What specifically is the concern here? If infrastructure knew the specifics, we
could discuss what you need and how we may solve it.
> - A number of business critical CI/CD processes
This should ideally have no bearing on a vendor-neutral FLOSS project, unless
'business' means something different here. Can you elaborate on this?
>
> Particularly reconfiguring the CI/CD process will take some time.
>
> Yet, we understand the desires and policies of ASF to properly manage the
source code repositories.
>
> In the interest of moving forward, the proposed high level plan is:
>
> (0) Create a documentation page on commit and contribue processes
> (as proposed by Matt along the lines of Cordovaâs Contributor
> Guidelines [1])
> (1) Transfer the repositories to the Apache GitHub organisation
> and setup required mail notifications for commits/pull requests
> and issue updates
Setup is handled by infrastructure on adoption of the repositories. The default
is to route commits to commits@openwhisk and PR/Issues to dev@openwhisk (or
issues@ if you have such a list)
> (2) Fork the apache/incubator-openwhisk-* repositories to the
> OpenWhisk organization under their previous names:
> (2a) Repositories are read-only
> (2b) Repositories are synced from their fork source
This would remove any redirects that would otherwise be in place, but that's
your prerogative :)
>
> User processes have to be adapted as soon as the repositories have been
transferred.
>
> Technical process should be adapted to the new processes within 3 weeks from
the transfer of the repositories (unforeseen difficulties to be discussed).
>
> With the transfer the wikis and issues are transferred as well. For Wikis this
is not a big deal. For issues, there are two things to consider:
>
> (a) how do we deal with bots reacting to issue events ?
> (b) how do we deal with Zenhub boards ? Can we live without them for a moment
?
Can you explain what Zenhub boards are, and how they play into the development?
>
> Ideally we would start implementing this plan over the holidays so that
repositories are ready and in place after that. According to Greg Infra is
staffed to work on this.
>
> @Greg: Would it be an option to have the read-only forks in the old locations
for a certain time ? Markus Thoemmes is an admin of the current repositories
available this week.
>
> @Project: Would that work for you ?
>
> @Markus Thoemmes: May I ask you to work with Greg to do the necessary ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] http://cordova.apache.org/contribute/contribute_guidelines.html
>
Re: Moving forward with repositories
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
Comments inline...
On 2016-12-20 23:15 (+0100), Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Given misunderstandings on what it means to be able to stay on GitHub we are not ready yet to transfer repositories from the GitHub OpenWhisk organisation to the GitHub Apache organisation thereby renaming the repositories according to the naming conventions.
>
> The inhibitors for moving quickly basically are:
> - Custom developer processes for pull requests
What specifically is the concern here? If infrastructure knew the specifics, we could discuss what you need and how we may solve it.
> - A number of business critical CI/CD processes
This should ideally have no bearing on a vendor-neutral FLOSS project, unless 'business' means something different here. Can you elaborate on this?
>
> Particularly reconfiguring the CI/CD process will take some time.
>
> Yet, we understand the desires and policies of ASF to properly manage the source code repositories.
>
> In the interest of moving forward, the proposed high level plan is:
>
> (0) Create a documentation page on commit and contribue processes
> (as proposed by Matt along the lines of Cordova\u2019s Contributor
> Guidelines [1])
> (1) Transfer the repositories to the Apache GitHub organisation
> and setup required mail notifications for commits/pull requests
> and issue updates
Setup is handled by infrastructure on adoption of the repositories. The default is to route commits to commits@openwhisk and PR/Issues to dev@openwhisk (or issues@ if you have such a list)
> (2) Fork the apache/incubator-openwhisk-* repositories to the
> OpenWhisk organization under their previous names:
> (2a) Repositories are read-only
> (2b) Repositories are synced from their fork source
This would remove any redirects that would otherwise be in place, but that's your prerogative :)
>
> User processes have to be adapted as soon as the repositories have been transferred.
>
> Technical process should be adapted to the new processes within 3 weeks from the transfer of the repositories (unforeseen difficulties to be discussed).
>
> With the transfer the wikis and issues are transferred as well. For Wikis this is not a big deal. For issues, there are two things to consider:
>
> (a) how do we deal with bots reacting to issue events ?
> (b) how do we deal with Zenhub boards ? Can we live without them for a moment ?
Can you explain what Zenhub boards are, and how they play into the development?
>
> Ideally we would start implementing this plan over the holidays so that repositories are ready and in place after that. According to Greg Infra is staffed to work on this.
>
> @Greg: Would it be an option to have the read-only forks in the old locations for a certain time ? Markus Thoemmes is an admin of the current repositories available this week.
>
> @Project: Would that work for you ?
>
> @Markus Thoemmes: May I ask you to work with Greg to do the necessary ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] http://cordova.apache.org/contribute/contribute_guidelines.html
>