It appears the mirroring is bi-directional.
Here's the output i got while pushing
/remote: Sending notification emails to:
['"comm...@flink.apache.org" <comm...@flink.apache.org>']
remote: To git@github:apache/flink-shaded.git
remote: fd3033b..301c6bb 301c6bbc5e87c44eac48d43e3b9ce44f3b54b3eb
-> test_branch
remote: Syncing refs/heads/test_branch...
To https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git
fd3033b..301c6bb master -> test_branch
/
What remains to be seen is what happens if the 2 repos are out of sync,
for example due to a concurrent
push to both apache and github. I don't have the time today to try this
out though.
On 18.07.2017 16:48, Suneel Marthi wrote:
FWIW, the Apache OpenNLP project recently moved to gitbox and even had a
release following that - if anything it makes a committers' PR merge
workflow lot easier when having to rebase, squash and merge PRs.
See the section about 'Merging a PR via Github' here -
http://opennlp.apache.org/using-git.html
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>
wrote:
Well then, let's just try it out :)
I'll push a branch to the apache repo.
On 18.07.2017 16:16, Greg Hogan wrote:
My understanding was that the synchronization was bidirectional but
clearly we’re working without documentation.
http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Apache-
Karaf-Slack-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html <
http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Apache-Karaf-
Slack-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html>
http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html
<http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html
On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote:
According to the JIRA you linked, you can push the the apache repo, but
it will be overridden by GitHub.
(as it should since the GitHub repo is the original)
The solution offered in the JIRA is to (force) push to the github repo
instead of the apache one.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this doesn't appear to change anything.
On 18.07.2017 14:37, Greg Hogan wrote:
You are not able to push to the ASF repo? This link implies that both
work (and identify an issue now addressed):
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039 <
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039>
From my .git/config:
[remote "origin"]
url = g...@github.com:apache/flink-shaded.git
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
[remote "apache"]
url = https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/apache/*
[branch "master"]
remote = origin
merge = refs/heads/master
On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>
wrote:
So committers would still need to link their accounts.
Source for the mirror info: https://issues.apache.org/jira
/browse/INFRA-13926
On 18.07.2017 13:50, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
Alright, so there is an apache repo that can found at
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=flink-shaded.git
but it is a mirror of the github repo.
For flink, we push to apache and it is mirrored to github.
For flink-shaded, we push to github and it is mirror to apache.
On 18.07.2017 13:47, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
I'm not aware of any asf hosted repository for gitbox projects; if
you look at the flink-shaded repository you will
not see any mention of it being a mirror, compared to the flink repo.
The git-wip-us.apache.org repo for flink-shaded was removed when we
switched.
On 18.07.2017 13:27, Greg Hogan wrote:
Linking is required to commit to the ASF hosted repo as well as the
GitHub repo? My understanding was that linking and 2FA was only required to
commit through GitHub, so no one would have diminished capabilities. I’d
generally recommend only ever writing to a single repo to prevent
concurrent commits.
On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>
wrote:
We recently moved flink-shaded to GitBox; overall I'm quite happy
with how it works.
However, it is not possible for committers to push commits that
haven't gone through the github/asf
account linking process (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/).
I verified this today in an experiment with the help of Robert.
The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF
github organization, include their github username
in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their
github account.
While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink
repository I don't know whether we want to
impose these requirements on all committers.
On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
+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
