On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Jake Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > We all agree that ASF Git is our canonical repo, and that is the source from which will will create our releases. That is what our existing process specifies. In the IRC meeting we agreed to also put a clear notification on the GitHub repo that it is not the canonical repo. * There must be a clear audit trail for the contribution being committed > Our existing process covers this, but we need complete the work of echoing all GitHub PR comments and actions to our dev or commits mailing list. > * The commit must occur to ASF hardware by a committer, not to Github > or via a sync process > Can you please provide a link to the ASF policy that specifies this rule because the above sentence does not make sense to me. Commits from an incoming GitHub PR *always* occur on GitHub. In our process the commit that merges a PR also happens on GitHub but the commit that merges the PR into ASF Git happens on ASF Git, from a committer. Where is the rule that says a sync process cannot be used? > * All releases must be cut from the source located at the ASF > Definitely. That is what our policy says. Thanks for helping us work this out. - Dave > > 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 > > >
