On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > From the discussion, it seems like we're +2, at least, with no objections > to work through. So, I'll go ahead and create the INFRA issue to migrate.
I Am also +1 on switching to gitbox. > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:14 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the ignorance! >> >> +0 >> >> On 8/18/17 10:49 PM, Christopher wrote: >> > Enabling GH issues is not automatic and would not accompany this change. >> We >> > would have to explicitly request that, separately, if we want to do that >> in >> > the future. >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:30 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >> My biggest concern was the confusion around the enabling of GH issues >> >> that would accompany this. >> >> >> >> As long as we're not trying to do project management in two places >> >> concurrently, I don't care either way. >> >> >> >> On 8/18/17 4:51 PM, Mike Drob wrote: >> >>> What has changed about the state of Accumulo or GitBox since the last >> >> time >> >>> we had this discussion? Not saying no here, curious as to why you think >> >> we >> >>> should revisit though. >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> I think we should revisit the discussion of using Apache GitBox for >> >>>> Accumulo. If you are unfamiliar with it, GitBox enables better GitHub >> >>>> integration for Apache projects. With GitBox, committers can label >> >> GitHub >> >>>> pull requests, squash and merge them using the GitHub UI, and close >> >> them if >> >>>> they become stale. I think a move to GitBox will help us do a better >> >> job of >> >>>> reviewing and merging pull requests so that contributions are looked >> at >> >> in >> >>>> a timely manner. The only downside to this move is that the git url >> for >> >>>> Accumulo will change. >> >>>> >> >>>> Does anyone have objections to this? >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>
