Hey everyone Sorry I had to leave early from this meeting, wanted to follow up on the points that must take place
* The ASF is the canonical location for source code * There must be a clear audit trail for the contribution being committed * The commit must occur to ASF hardware by a committer, not to Github or via a sync process * All releases must be cut from the source located at the ASF -Jake On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:31 PM, ASF IRC Bot <[email protected]> wrote: > Summary of IRC Meeting in #usergrid at Tue Jun 17 20:12:03 2014: > > Attendees: snoopdave, rockerst_, jfarrell, Humbedooh, toddnine, > rockerston, sfeldman, lmcgibbn > > - Preface > - usergrid git workflow > > > IRC log follows: > > ## Preface ## > ## usergrid git workflow ## > [Tue Jun 17 20:12:48 2014] <jfarrell>: everyone involved in todays meeting > can we please do a quick roll call > [Tue Jun 17 20:12:58 2014] <jfarrell>: here > [Tue Jun 17 20:12:59 2014] <snoopdave>: snoopdave - Dave Johnson > [Tue Jun 17 20:13:26 2014] <rockerston>: rockerston - Rod Simpson > [Tue Jun 17 20:13:36 2014] <toddnine>: toddnine - Todd Nine (cause I’m > creative like that) > [Tue Jun 17 20:13:38 2014] <sfeldman>: sfeldman - Shawn Feldman > [Tue Jun 17 20:14:13 2014] <lmcgibbn>: lmcgibbn - Lewis John McGibbney > [Tue Jun 17 20:15:17 2014] <lmcgibbn>: afternoon team > [Tue Jun 17 20:15:17 2014] <snoopdave>: ok, so we came up with a > contribution work flow and voted it in > [Tue Jun 17 20:15:36 2014] <snoopdave>: then we got word that it was not > appropriate, but we don’t know exactly why > [Tue Jun 17 20:15:43 2014] <rockerston>: hey, hey, lewis! > [Tue Jun 17 20:15:49 2014] <jfarrell>: currently the workflow that is > being used was brought up on board@ and infra@ and my initial email was > to start the conversation around how we can become in compliance with > existing policies > [Tue Jun 17 20:16:09 2014] <snoopdave>: cool. So what specific polcies are > we violating? > [Tue Jun 17 20:16:21 2014] <jfarrell>: this was triggered by the sync you > had running on people.a.o > [Tue Jun 17 20:16:36 2014] <jfarrell>: the commits can not occur at > github, they much occur against git-wip > [Tue Jun 17 20:17:02 2014] <snoopdave>: right. My sync process was judged > to be insecure becuase I was storing my ASF creds in a .netrc file (only > readable by me) > [Tue Jun 17 20:17:04 2014] <lmcgibbn>: For those who need to look through > current documentation > [Tue Jun 17 20:17:04 2014] <lmcgibbn>: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/usergrid/Contributor+Workflow+Policy > [Tue Jun 17 20:17:19 2014] <snoopdave>: that is a fair criticism > [Tue Jun 17 20:18:11 2014] <snoopdave>: but is there a policy that > prohibits that type of sync from GitHub to ASF Git? > [Tue Jun 17 20:18:34 2014] <rockerston>: where does it say that commits > can't be done against github? > [Tue Jun 17 20:18:38 2014] <rockerston>: and why? > [Tue Jun 17 20:18:39 2014] <jfarrell>: yes, as the commit is not occurring > to the asf, it is occuring to github > [Tue Jun 17 20:18:46 2014] <rockerston>: why is that bad? > [Tue Jun 17 20:19:03 2014] <rockerston>: git uses a peer to peer structure > [Tue Jun 17 20:19:15 2014] <rockerston>: there is no canonical source > [Tue Jun 17 20:19:27 2014] <rockerston>: they are clones > [Tue Jun 17 20:21:12 2014] <toddnine>: Ultimately git is a P2P source > control system. There is no canonical source for a SHA, it can originate > from any system, even a local repo. As long as there is a log of all sha’s > commited in the Apache repository, why does it matter where it originates > from? > [Tue Jun 17 20:21:20 2014] <jfarrell>: yes, and that gives it even more > reason to have the commit occur at the asf and not have it synced > [Tue Jun 17 20:21:50 2014] <jfarrell>: becuase you can rewite the > author/committer and then sync it over, or in the case of how it was > occurring all commits@ had snoopdave as the origonator > [Tue Jun 17 20:21:57 2014] <jfarrell>: as committers we need to ensure > that the asf policies around controbutions are being met and when we make a > commit to the repo we are verifying that all these policies have been met > and ip clearance is met > [Tue Jun 17 20:22:07 2014] <lmcgibbn>: My understanding is that the code > contained at git-wip repos is the official repos > [Tue Jun 17 20:22:09 2014] <snoopdave>: also, in the JClouds process then > manually bring in commits that occured at GitHub and cause them to be > pushed to ASF Git — I don’t see the difference — the contributor’s commits > originate on GitHub them get pushed to ASF Git > [Tue Jun 17 20:22:18 2014] <jfarrell>: if that is not the case for a given > commit then we need to remove it and act accordingly, this is the primary > function of a PMC > [Tue Jun 17 20:22:48 2014] <jfarrell>: jclouds repo does not sync directly > to the ASF > [Tue Jun 17 20:23:04 2014] <jfarrell>: the committer is responsible for > making the commit and pushing it over to git-wip > [Tue Jun 17 20:23:30 2014] <snoopdave>: there are two types of commits in > this discussion, the contributor’s commits that happen at GitHub — and the > accepting committer’s commit that merges the change > [Tue Jun 17 20:23:39 2014] <toddnine>: I’m not convinced our history is > overwritten with this process. Observe this history. > https://github.com/apache/incubator-usergrid/commits/two-dot-o?page=2 > [Tue Jun 17 20:23:46 2014] <jfarrell>: jclouds was also setup before all > the github integration work we did, they are looking at whats needed to > switch over and use it over their current workflow > [Tue Jun 17 20:24:25 2014] <toddnine>: Also, isn’t it the responsibility > of the committer to ensure the contributer has an ICLA on file before > merging, regardless of the medium? > [Tue Jun 17 20:24:44 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Although the usergrid workflow was > modeled largely on the jClouds one... I am not sure if us quoting them > drives on the Usergrid agenda. > [Tue Jun 17 20:33:00 2014] <lmcgibbn>: toddnine: I am not sure if it is > the committer's responsibility > [Tue Jun 17 20:33:00 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Unless stated in the contribution > [Tue Jun 17 20:33:00 2014] <lmcgibbn>: then > [Tue Jun 17 20:33:00 2014] <lmcgibbn>: *everything* > [Tue Jun 17 20:33:03 2014] <snoopdave>: my main problem with the workflow > you’ve proposed Jake is additonal manual work to accept a commit from a > contributor, and the additonal work a committer must do do get his work > back to ASF Git (since we use GitHub as our code review system for all > commits) > [Tue Jun 17 20:36:31 2014] <rockerst_>: right now we don't have the job > turned on > [Tue Jun 17 20:36:36 2014] <lmcgibbn>: ... that's if there is much to > actually fix > [Tue Jun 17 20:37:11 2014] <rockerst_>: we just need to set up the > webhooks in github > [Tue Jun 17 20:37:22 2014] <rockerst_>: so the notifications go out to the > appropriate ML > [Tue Jun 17 20:37:38 2014] <snoopdave>: seems like we don’t have and > answer to what is allowed and disallowed by ASF policy. Is there some > specific person who raised issues with our process? somebody who we need to > convince? somebody who is “the decider” in our case? > [Tue Jun 17 20:38:25 2014] <lmcgibbn>: snoopdave: who made the > determination to revoke your account? > [Tue Jun 17 20:38:31 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Maybe we can start there. > [Tue Jun 17 20:38:46 2014] <jfarrell>: the other concern was that > github.com/usergrid is not asf owned and if commits are occuring there > then there is no security prevention in place (like ldap with git-wip) > [Tue Jun 17 20:39:47 2014] <rockerst_>: you have to have a GH account, > which is secure. > [Tue Jun 17 20:39:55 2014] <rockerst_>: what is not secure? > [Tue Jun 17 20:40:19 2014] <jfarrell>: gh account != apache account, can > add non committer to the usergrid org and they can make commits > [Tue Jun 17 20:40:45 2014] <rockerst_>: but isn't that our responsibility? > [Tue Jun 17 20:41:00 2014] <rockerst_>: to make sure no unauthorized > persons are added? > [Tue Jun 17 20:41:23 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Yes I suppose it is... > [Tue Jun 17 20:41:45 2014] <lmcgibbn>: and it is also our job as > incubating mentors to make sure that this is the case as well. > [Tue Jun 17 20:41:59 2014] <snoopdave>: just like it is our responsbility > to ensure people submit contributions under ASF and submit ICLAs when > necessary > [Tue Jun 17 20:42:13 2014] <lmcgibbn>: I think everyone is good on this > front... there are no problems here. > [Tue Jun 17 20:42:58 2014] <jfarrell>: yes, and using the ASF resources we > have done so thus far, as far as github.com/usergrid as a mentor I have > no access to it > [Tue Jun 17 20:43:17 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Neither do I > [Tue Jun 17 20:43:30 2014] <toddnine>: Well that’s easily recified :) > [Tue Jun 17 20:43:31 2014] <jfarrell>: i dont know what other mentors > do/dont have access, but know that in the ASF everyone has the correct > permissions > [Tue Jun 17 20:43:37 2014] <toddnine>: Usernames? > [Tue Jun 17 20:44:12 2014] <lmcgibbn>: toddnine: usernames for Github? > [Tue Jun 17 20:44:22 2014] <toddnine>: lmcgibbn: Correct > [Tue Jun 17 20:44:33 2014] <lmcgibbn>: My name is lewismc > [Tue Jun 17 20:44:34 2014] <jfarrell>: if there is something preventing us > from using the asf resources then I would love to work to add them > [Tue Jun 17 20:45:09 2014] <jfarrell>: i am only aware of jclouds as the > only other external org within github > [Tue Jun 17 20:45:50 2014] <toddnine>: Nothing is *wrong* with ASF per se > right > [Tue Jun 17 20:46:03 2014] <snoopdave>: the issue is that the project > wants to use GH for all code reviews and wants to hook into the huge number > of potential contributors using GitHub > [Tue Jun 17 20:46:09 2014] <rockerst_>: the reason that we want to use > github is because it is very user friendly, allows us do do awesome code > reviews, gives us access to a massive community of developers... > [Tue Jun 17 20:46:23 2014] <snoopdave>: and I don’t think those desires > are incompatible with ASF > [Tue Jun 17 20:46:28 2014] <toddnine>: It’s simply that GH is far more > popular. Our goal is to attract quality contributors. Creating > artificially imposed barriers to this seems to counter the Apache spirit. > [Tue Jun 17 20:46:47 2014] <jfarrell>: which can be done using > github/apache/incubator-usergrid, no? > [Tue Jun 17 20:47:10 2014] <rockerst_>: Jake, we can't do commits and > accept PRs there > [Tue Jun 17 20:47:17 2014] <rockerst_>: it is a read-only mirror > [Tue Jun 17 20:47:33 2014] <jfarrell>: > https://help.github.com/articles/closing-issues-via-commit-messages > [Tue Jun 17 20:47:34 2014] <snoopdave>: like I said before “my main > problem with the workflow you’ve proposed Jake is additonal manual work to > accept a commit from a contributor, and the additonal work a committer must > do do get his work back to ASF Git (since we use GitHub as our code review > system for all commits)” > [Tue Jun 17 20:47:48 2014] <rockerst_>: also you can't restrict access to > only /apache/incubator-usergrid > [Tue Jun 17 20:47:59 2014] <toddnine>: lmcgibbn: You’re gtg on the > usergrid/usergrid > [Tue Jun 17 20:48:35 2014] <jfarrell>: git-wip takes the initial commit -> > syncs to the official mirror on git.a.o and then github picks up this > mirror and closed any pr's based on the commit hash or commit message > [Tue Jun 17 20:48:37 2014] <rockerst_>: also, what is the difference > between using github/apache and usgin github/usergrid > [Tue Jun 17 20:48:38 2014] <lmcgibbn>: thank you toddnine > [Tue Jun 17 20:51:27 2014] <lmcgibbn>: folks > [Tue Jun 17 20:51:33 2014] <lmcgibbn>: AFAICT > [Tue Jun 17 20:52:03 2014] <lmcgibbn>: The document we maintain doe not > cover contributions and commits to the 2-dot-0 branch > [Tue Jun 17 20:52:06 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Is this correct? > [Tue Jun 17 20:53:07 2014] <snoopdave>: I thought we agreed that all code > that goes into master must be PR’d and reviewd, but code that goes into > branches does not (until it is merged with master) > [Tue Jun 17 20:53:41 2014] <lmcgibbn>: snoopdave: thank you for clarifying > [Tue Jun 17 20:53:47 2014] <lmcgibbn>: That sounds logical to me > [Tue Jun 17 20:54:12 2014] <lmcgibbn>: It also prevent barrier to entry > for other wanting to work on branches/issues. > [Tue Jun 17 20:54:56 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Can I suggest that in an attempt to > converge our thoughts on this topic we attempt to address the following 4 > points > [Tue Jun 17 20:55:13 2014] <lmcgibbn>: 1. Pull request created: includes > the date, time, username, description of the pull request and link. > [Tue Jun 17 20:55:22 2014] <lmcgibbn>: 2. Pull request commented: includes > the date, time, username, comment content and link > [Tue Jun 17 20:55:31 2014] <lmcgibbn>: 3. Pull request merge: includes the > date, time, username, comment content and link > [Tue Jun 17 20:55:39 2014] <lmcgibbn>: 4. Pull request closed: includes > the date, time, username, comment content and link > [Tue Jun 17 20:56:13 2014] <lmcgibbn>: For all of the above we need to set > up a mechanism that causes every pull request to be recorded on the project > commits list as emails: > [Tue Jun 17 20:56:27 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Does anyone have an issue with the > above? > [Tue Jun 17 20:56:41 2014] <Humbedooh>: ACTION peeks.. > [Tue Jun 17 20:56:58 2014] <jfarrell>: i've got to run, i pinged > Humbedooh, who is one of the other git admins here at the ASF in adition to > being on the IPMC and root@ > [Tue Jun 17 20:56:58 2014] <toddnine>: lmcgibbn: Not at all. We simply > need to echo that into the ML right? > [Tue Jun 17 20:57:17 2014] <snoopdave>: thanks Jake > [Tue Jun 17 20:57:21 2014] <lmcgibbn>: jfarrell: thanks for your time > [Tue Jun 17 20:57:25 2014] <Humbedooh>: so...what's your gripe with using > a mirror on github? > [Tue Jun 17 20:57:28 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Humbedooh: hi hi > [Tue Jun 17 20:57:30 2014] <jfarrell>: Humbedooh: can you close out the > meeting when done so i can catch up on whats missed > [Tue Jun 17 20:57:45 2014] <Humbedooh>: not to be grumpy cat, but it works > well for just about every other ASF project :) > [Tue Jun 17 20:58:02 2014] <lmcgibbn>: toddnine: AFACS yes... lets see how > things pan out though > [Tue Jun 17 20:58:09 2014] <Humbedooh>: we have github->asf and > asf->github replication of code, messages etc > [Tue Jun 17 20:58:14 2014] <snoopdave>: like I said before “my main > problem with the workflow you’ve proposed Jake is additonal manual work to > accept a commit from a contributor, and the additonal work a committer must > do do get his work back to ASF Git (since we use GitHub as our code review > system for all commits)” > [Tue Jun 17 20:58:36 2014] <snoopdave>: the project wants to use GH for > all code reviews and wants to hook into the huge number of potential > contributors using GitHub > [Tue Jun 17 20:58:57 2014] <Humbedooh>: 1) so you spend 1 more minute, > that doesn't strike me as a big deal > [Tue Jun 17 20:59:06 2014] <Humbedooh>: 2) nobody is preventing you from > using github > [Tue Jun 17 20:59:21 2014] <Humbedooh>: there is no "secret bar" for > github users from their perspective > [Tue Jun 17 20:59:33 2014] <Humbedooh>: they add a PR, some code, and > that's still all they need to do > [Tue Jun 17 20:59:47 2014] <Humbedooh>: if it's a larger issue, they sign > an ICLA, as with all other projects > [Tue Jun 17 21:00:26 2014] <Humbedooh>: but the only difference between a > mirror and r/w on github is that you have to pull their changes, check it, > and send it to git-wip > [Tue Jun 17 21:00:33 2014] <Humbedooh>: which I would expect you to do > anyway > [Tue Jun 17 21:01:06 2014] <Humbedooh>: do note I use 'you' in plural > sense :) > [Tue Jun 17 21:01:19 2014] <rockerst_>: in RE: 1), it isn't 1 more minute. > it is an unpleasant process that doesn't make sense > [Tue Jun 17 21:01:52 2014] <snoopdave>: we need to do that 1 minute thing > for every push we do, that is significant > [Tue Jun 17 21:01:54 2014] <rockerst_>: in RE 2), not sure what you mean > there. We are using Github and doing so very effectively > [Tue Jun 17 21:02:04 2014] <rockerst_>: not sure what you mean by "secret > bar" > [Tue Jun 17 21:02:37 2014] <rockerst_>: We have come up with a ver > streamlined process > [Tue Jun 17 21:02:48 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Humbedooh: > [Tue Jun 17 21:02:56 2014] <rockerst_>: and nobody has been able to > effectively explain what the problems are > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:05 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Can you please review the 4 bullet > points I put above? > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:12 2014] <rockerst_>: the argument has only been "do it > this other way" > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:25 2014] <lmcgibbn>: The Usergrid incubating community > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:28 2014] <lmcgibbn>: VOTE'd > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:33 2014] <lmcgibbn>: to put in place > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:36 2014] <Humbedooh>: lmcgibbn: that's all taken care > off by the github->asf integration > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:36 2014] <lmcgibbn>: and then stick to > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:50 2014] <lmcgibbn>: the workflow which we are discussing > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:54 2014] <rockerst_>: what lewis proposes makes perfect > sense > [Tue Jun 17 21:03:58 2014] <Humbedooh>: whenever something happens on a > github mirror, it gets replicated on the ML > [Tue Jun 17 21:04:25 2014] <rockerst_>: we don't want to use this other > process > [Tue Jun 17 21:04:36 2014] <Humbedooh>: rockerst_: it was implied that > there was some issue with using a github mirror as opposed to a r/w > repository > [Tue Jun 17 21:04:40 2014] <rockerst_>: because it is cumbersome and kind > of sucky > [Tue Jun 17 21:04:49 2014] <Humbedooh>: otherwise, I don't know why there > was a need to mention that you want to use github > [Tue Jun 17 21:04:55 2014] <rockerst_>: so why can't we use our workflow? > [Tue Jun 17 21:05:16 2014] <Humbedooh>: a r/w repository? > [Tue Jun 17 21:05:19 2014] <rockerst_>: the discussion isn't about using a > different workflow > [Tue Jun 17 21:05:32 2014] <rockerst_>: it is about using the workflow > that we have laid out > [Tue Jun 17 21:05:43 2014] <rockerst_>: we were told that we are violating > apache policy > [Tue Jun 17 21:05:50 2014] <rockerst_>: but i have not seen any evidence > of that > [Tue Jun 17 21:06:17 2014] <rockerst_>: and nobody has been able to point > to anything that we can't comply with > [Tue Jun 17 21:06:38 2014] <Humbedooh>: if the canonical source is not on > ASF hardware and if the commits are not done by an ASF committer, then it's > not within policy > [Tue Jun 17 21:07:05 2014] <lmcgibbn>: The Usergrid workflow is completely > new to me. I am always accustomed to using git-wip for pushing code > changes. However the (diverse) community of developers has VOTE'd to use > it. It we can use the workflow then I would like to make best efforts to > meet this. > [Tue Jun 17 21:07:09 2014] <lmcgibbn>: @Humbedooh > [Tue Jun 17 21:07:23 2014] <lmcgibbn>: I think that the canonical source > is at ASF > [Tue Jun 17 21:07:27 2014] <lmcgibbn>: it is on git-wip > [Tue Jun 17 21:07:34 2014] <snoopdave>: policy only says that releases > must be made from canonical repo at the ASF and that is what we do > [Tue Jun 17 21:07:36 2014] <lmcgibbn>: This is where releases will be done > from > [Tue Jun 17 21:07:45 2014] <lmcgibbn>: on the second point > [Tue Jun 17 21:07:46 2014] <Humbedooh>: I'm struggling to see what the big > issue is here - is it _just_ that you want to be able to merge directly? > [Tue Jun 17 21:08:00 2014] <lmcgibbn>: commits will always be done by a > VOTE'd upon committer > [Tue Jun 17 21:08:06 2014] <rockerst_>: all of our commits are tracked > [Tue Jun 17 21:08:07 2014] <rockerst_>: yes > [Tue Jun 17 21:08:30 2014] <Humbedooh>: so you never just hit the 'merge' > button or whatever it's called? > [Tue Jun 17 21:08:31 2014] <lmcgibbn>: That is the job of the Incubating > PPMC (including mentors) as well as the PMC once the community and project > graduates. > [Tue Jun 17 21:08:42 2014] <toddnine>: Humbedooh: Correct. The extra > download/upload step gets time consuming with a lot of requests, especially > trivial contributions > [Tue Jun 17 21:09:12 2014] <toddnine>: If we can just review these small > contributions, and press Accept, it’s significantly easier for us. > [Tue Jun 17 21:09:13 2014] <rockerst_>: all code that goes to Master are > done with PRs > [Tue Jun 17 21:09:32 2014] <Humbedooh>: toddnine: I'm not sure you are > covered by the ASF if you do that > [Tue Jun 17 21:09:47 2014] <Humbedooh>: and I don't want your house to be > on the line if someone sues usergrid :) > [Tue Jun 17 21:10:00 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Humbedooh: > [Tue Jun 17 21:10:02 2014] <lmcgibbn>: can you clarify > [Tue Jun 17 21:10:10 2014] <snoopdave>: humbedooh: this is the workflow we > are following: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/usergrid/Contributor+Workflow+Policy > [Tue Jun 17 21:10:38 2014] <lmcgibbn>: It was my understanding that all > code submitted via patch and/or pull request is licensed as ASLv2.0 > [Tue Jun 17 21:10:47 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Unless the author says otherwise > [Tue Jun 17 21:11:06 2014] <lmcgibbn>: This was also my understanding with > regards to documentation. > [Tue Jun 17 21:11:51 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Can we please agree that the > canonical source code for Usergrid (incubating) is at ASF git-wip > [Tue Jun 17 21:11:52 2014] <lmcgibbn>: ? > [Tue Jun 17 21:12:13 2014] <snoopdave>: yes, we agree on that > [Tue Jun 17 21:12:18 2014] <lmcgibbn>: OK > [Tue Jun 17 21:12:21 2014] <lmcgibbn>: One hurdle down > [Tue Jun 17 21:12:32 2014] <Humbedooh>: so I can send you a patch outside > of github then? > [Tue Jun 17 21:12:38 2014] <snoopdave>: policy says all releases must be > cut from canonical repo, and htat is what we do > [Tue Jun 17 21:13:09 2014] <lmcgibbn>: All patches are either on the ASF > Jira (which means they are ASLv2.0 licensed unless stated otherwise) or > [Tue Jun 17 21:13:16 2014] <lmcgibbn>: as per the workflow > [Tue Jun 17 21:13:31 2014] <lmcgibbn>: submitted as pull requests to the > mirrior at usergrid/usergrid > [Tue Jun 17 21:13:43 2014] <snoopdave>: humbedooh: we can accept patches > via JIRA but we urge people to use GitHub as that is our code review system > [Tue Jun 17 21:14:05 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Once (and if) code is merge there > it is merged back into ASF git-wip which is the canonical source > [Tue Jun 17 21:14:35 2014] <lmcgibbn>: The intermediate usergrid/usergrid > is merely for the convenience of the Usergrid project committers > [Tue Jun 17 21:14:56 2014] <lmcgibbn>: and for the convenience of the > contributors who may wish to become involved with developing Usergrid > [Tue Jun 17 21:15:06 2014] <toddnine>: Correct > [Tue Jun 17 21:15:26 2014] <lmcgibbn>: From a mentor point of view this > seems entirely logical to me. > [Tue Jun 17 21:15:26 2014] <rockerst_>: yes > [Tue Jun 17 21:15:29 2014] <Humbedooh>: if (IF) the canonical source for > the project is on git-wip and you put up a big yellow sign saying "This > GitHub repo is not the canonical source, please see....", then I don't see > a problem per se > [Tue Jun 17 21:15:43 2014] <lmcgibbn>: From a contributor point of view > this has been very convenient for me. > [Tue Jun 17 21:16:00 2014] <lmcgibbn>: OK > [Tue Jun 17 21:16:02 2014] <Humbedooh>: but if people are led to believe > that the github repo IS the canonical source, and you do nothing about it, > then it's your behinds on the line personally, and not the ASF > [Tue Jun 17 21:16:06 2014] <lmcgibbn>: We've made serious progress here. > [Tue Jun 17 21:16:13 2014] <lmcgibbn>: I mean serious progress. > [Tue Jun 17 21:16:17 2014] <rockerst_>: We would be happy to put up a > yellow sign > [Tue Jun 17 21:16:36 2014] <lmcgibbn>: As a mentor of this project, I feel > that this is a major step forward for the community (dev's especially). > [Tue Jun 17 21:16:53 2014] <lmcgibbn>: A lot of hard work has gone in to > Usergrid and I am really looking forward to sorting this out. > [Tue Jun 17 21:16:59 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Can we please take some actions? > [Tue Jun 17 21:17:50 2014] <lmcgibbn>: 1. All previous bullet points > regarding setup of mechanism that causes every pull request to be recorded > on the project commits list as emails. > [Tue Jun 17 21:17:56 2014] <rockerst_>: i think we still don't know > specifically who is objecting to the workflow > [Tue Jun 17 21:18:14 2014] <rockerst_>: lewis brought it up, but didn't > respond when we asked who is objecting > [Tue Jun 17 21:18:17 2014] <snoopdave>: and what specific objections they > have > [Tue Jun 17 21:18:31 2014] <lmcgibbn>: rockerst_: As far as this meeting > goes I think that no-one is objecting. > [Tue Jun 17 21:19:13 2014] <lmcgibbn>: I feel we have made progress on > clarifying what we (Usergrid) want to achieve... > [Tue Jun 17 21:19:21 2014] <lmcgibbn>: It seems like we've been able to do > that. > [Tue Jun 17 21:19:37 2014] <rockerst_>: lmcgibbn: agree > [Tue Jun 17 21:19:44 2014] <lmcgibbn>: OK > [Tue Jun 17 21:19:48 2014] <lmcgibbn>: So I propose the following > [Tue Jun 17 21:19:52 2014] <lmcgibbn>: In addition to 1. above > [Tue Jun 17 21:20:01 2014] <lmcgibbn>: we also address Humbedooh suggestion > [Tue Jun 17 21:20:13 2014] <rockerst_>: yellow sign? > [Tue Jun 17 21:20:17 2014] <lmcgibbn>: +1 > [Tue Jun 17 21:20:23 2014] <Humbedooh>: well...it could be blue, if you > like blue ;-) > [Tue Jun 17 21:20:30 2014] <lmcgibbn>: :) > [Tue Jun 17 21:20:48 2014] <toddnine>: +1 > [Tue Jun 17 21:21:31 2014] <lmcgibbn>: I would also like to finally > clarify that script on snoopdave 's account has been deactivated based on > recent actions taken by Infra leading up to this IRC meeting. > [Tue Jun 17 21:21:42 2014] <lmcgibbn>: snoopdave: can you please clarify > for the record? > [Tue Jun 17 21:22:00 2014] <snoopdave>: yes, my script was disabled > [Tue Jun 17 21:22:04 2014] <lmcgibbn>: OK > [Tue Jun 17 21:22:24 2014] <snoopdave>: when I need to push from GH to ASF > Git I do it manually > [Tue Jun 17 21:22:42 2014] <lmcgibbn>: So by the looks and sounds of it > the workflow as stated on the Usergrid (incubating) wiki can continue once > we have addressed the above actions. > [Tue Jun 17 21:23:10 2014] <rockerst_>: i can update the readme file in > the root of the project to convey the information about the canonical source > [Tue Jun 17 21:23:22 2014] <lmcgibbn>: +1 rockerst_ thank you > [Tue Jun 17 21:23:30 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Does anyone have anything to add? > [Tue Jun 17 21:24:32 2014] <snoopdave>: I think that is all we can do: > address specific problems with our process: 1) indicate our repo is not the > canonical repo, 2) setup email notifications for PRs and 3) figure how to > automate the sync > [Tue Jun 17 21:24:44 2014] <rockerst_>: exactly > [Tue Jun 17 21:24:54 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Sounds great. > [Tue Jun 17 21:24:55 2014] <rockerst_>: i think we are done here > [Tue Jun 17 21:25:01 2014] <lmcgibbn>: RE: 3 > [Tue Jun 17 21:25:07 2014] <lmcgibbn>: any immediate ideas? > [Tue Jun 17 21:25:09 2014] <snoopdave>: thanks Humbedooh > [Tue Jun 17 21:25:40 2014] <rockerst_>: lmcgibbn: jfarrell: Humbedooh: > thank you for helping out :) > [Tue Jun 17 21:25:52 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Humbedooh: jfarrell thank you for > your time > [Tue Jun 17 21:25:59 2014] <Humbedooh>: re 3, I'd hold off till the policy > review is done > [Tue Jun 17 21:26:15 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Humbedooh: +1 > [Tue Jun 17 21:26:30 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Humbedooh: can you please adjourn > this meeting when you are ready. > [Tue Jun 17 21:26:34 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Thank you for your time. > [Tue Jun 17 21:26:54 2014] <lmcgibbn>: BTW people, #usergrid is much > better when people are actually here. > [Tue Jun 17 21:26:58 2014] <Humbedooh>: ASFBot: karma add lmcgibbn 3 > [Tue Jun 17 21:27:03 2014] <Humbedooh>: lmcgibbn: you can do it yourself ;) > [Tue Jun 17 21:27:08 2014] <lmcgibbn>: recently it has been me and jfarrell > [Tue Jun 17 21:27:11 2014] <lmcgibbn>: Thank you > [Tue Jun 17 21:28:26 2014] <Humbedooh>: ASFBot: meeting end > > > Meeting ended at Tue Jun 17 21:28:26 2014 >
