+1 to officially supporting GitHub PRs. On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the barrier > to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above) > > +1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions. > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: > > > Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration > > that Spark has, formal or otherwise. > > > > If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to > > infra. > > > > > As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any > > control over Cassandra Github mirror. > > > > > > Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the > > erroneously opened PRs ourselves, > > > they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close > them. > > That’s really frustrating. > > > > No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This > > is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at. You > > can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks up. > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > AY > > > > > > On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote: > > > > > > On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of > > creating > > >> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate > > >> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of > > changes > > >> in Jira. > > >> > > >> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a > github > > >> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making > github > > >> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way > > >> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not > sure.) > > >> > > >> Should we revisit our policy here? > > > > > > At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a > > > mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub. > > > > > > Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub > > > config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy > > > held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress. > > > > > > As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend > > > that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project > > > makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be > > > said for other processes as well like Jira config.) > > > > > > It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent > > > to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine. > > > Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they > may > > > ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than > > > anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable. > > > > > > My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place > > > than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than > > > technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > >> > > >> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed > > > > > > > > > > >
