+1 for trying out Gitbox! On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that with GitBox project committers who have linked > Apache and GitHub accounts are given organization write permissions. Other > contributors will continue to have read permissions. > https://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an- > organization/ > > The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of > GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit > into the GitHub repo. > > If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and > use with the nascent flink-libraries. > > > > On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Found some info in this JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/INFRA-14191 > > > > Apparently, Gitbox is still in the beta phase. There are no public docs > for it yet. > > > > Committers are required to link their apache & GitHub accounts, which > requires 2FA on GitHub. > > > > As it stands I would be in favor of Gregs original suggestion of > activating it for flink-web as a test bed. > > I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it > is a bit more proven. > > > > On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote: > >> I would also like to see this happening for both flink-web and flink > >> if it allows committers to have control over the respective repos. > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> What are the downsides of this? Actually, is there any ASF resource > that > >>> outlines what this would enable? > >>> > >>> In one of the threads i saw said that this would also allow committers > to > >>> close PR's, assign labels and such. > >>> This sounds very interesting to me for the main repo actually. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 09.06.2017 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote: > >>>> Robert has an open PR from March. I’ve found, for example, PRs adding > >>>> links to talks or slides left open for months. > >>>> > >>>> I’d suggest Fluo is to Accumulo as flink-web is to the flink repo, and > >>>> that migration looks to be satisfactory. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Jun 9, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> bq. better track the oft-neglected contributions > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you have estimate on how many contributions were not paid > attention in > >>>>> the current infrastructure. > >>>>> > >>>>> Looking at #2, it seems Accumulo community hasn't reached consensus > yet. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> All, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or > repos) > >>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links > >>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub > functionality > >>>>>> by > >>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise > >>>>>> requiring > >>>>>> INFRA tickets. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub > issues, > >>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has > >>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after > >>>>>> migrating > >>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected > >>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations > (perhaps > >>>>>> for > >>>>>> the future sub-projects). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/ > >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls > >>>>>> [2] > >>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS- > >>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Greg > >>> > >>> > > > >
