On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:07 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would suggest having most work in the github world, and a published method >> for >> new contributors to do a normal github fork and pull approach. Contributors >> can then >> use a process to migrate that to apache git once it is approved for merge. >> That allows >> use of the github infra for review and a public face where, at the moment, >> people would expect it to be. > > I would strongly advise against that.
Very strong +1 to that. See the other thread where I'm proposing JIRA to be the single source of truth for the project. > All of the discussion should happen on the ASF mailing lists or other > infrastructure-supported tools. > > We should not be having discussions solely within the GitHub > infrastructure. One of the key lockins is that GitHub does not > support exporting those comments on a PR - so, when GitHub disappears > (which it will eventually), all of that information will be lost. Now, I think using Github as one of the review tools and accepting PRs is actually fine. Typically the discussion between reviewers is captured on JIRA. But! Given our GH integration the discussion between reviewers is actually captured on the mailing list. Which, in my opinion is as good (if not better -- think searching) as JIRA. Thoughts? Thanks, Roman.
