I believe we reached consensus to migrate our remaining repositories to GitBox before the mandatory migration which will happen on 7th of February. Apart from 'hbase' we still have 'hbase-site' and 'hbase-thirdparty' repositories that also require the same migration process.
>From users' point of view they could still use git:// git.apache.org/hbase.git for read only access, only committers need to change the remote URL to the GitBox one. Jenkins jobs are already using the GitHub URL for cloning the repository and I created a patch for the documentation and website changes in HBASE-21685 that we can merge after the process is competed. There's still outstanding work to do before we have good guidelines on accepting pull requests on GitHub, but the GitBox migration doesn't require our committers to start working with PRs in a different way. If there is no disagreement I'd kindly ask one of the PMC members to reach out to INFRA to perform the migration. Thanks, Peter On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:56 AM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds good to me except squash merge at commit of PR shouldn’t be an > option it should be required except for good reason (and I don’t know what > that would be ) > > > On Dec 8, 2018, at 3:28 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:23 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> The move to gitbox doesn't require us to only accept github PRs. Given > >> the current rate of contributions via patches on JIRA vs GitHub PRs, I > >> wouldn't want to push for that now. > >> > >> The change does make it easier for us to start encouraging PR > >> submissions, because committers will be able to directly merge from > >> the GitHub UI. > >> > >> I'd recommend we try to keep this as a small incremental change. That > >> would mean: > >> > >> * committers ensure there's an associated JIRA for release note and > >> precommit checks (that can be just by pinging the contributor to go > >> make one) > >> * backports are still handled by the committer if they're simple and > >> the contributor if there's a problem. I think saying "open a new PR to > >> backport to branch FOO" is perfectly reasonable since it's analogous > >> to when we ask contributors to attach a branch specific patch. > >> * committers ensure the pushed commit has a message that follows our > >> current practice (which would mean looking out for the "helpful" > >> subject wrapping) > >> * Squash merge is an option when the committer goes to accept the PR. > >> the contributor is free to either push additional commits or squash on > >> their branch when working through reviews, I don't think we need to > >> weigh in on how contributors choose which of those works best for > >> them. > >> > >> That way we can also incrementally improve how well we handle PR > >> submissions by better documenting expectations and building up > >> additional tooling (e.g. having our precommit feedback go directly to > >> the PR instead of being tied to a JIRA) > >> > > > > This seems reasonable to me. Andrew's strawman would be too radical a > > change. > > Thanks, > > S > > > > > >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:09 PM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:03 AM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi folks! > >>>> > >>>> Per the email from infra "[NOTICE] Mandatory relocation of Apache git > >>>> repositories on git-wip-us.apache.org" ( https://s.apache.org/0sfe ) > >> it > >>>> looks like the future of interacting directly with PRs is coming > sooner > >>>> rather than later. > >>>> > >>>> I think we should move to gitbox ASAP rather than wait for the crunch. > >> If > >>>> we hit a rough spot we're more likely to get some help when things > >> aren't > >>>> busy. Maybe we wait until our open RCs close so that folks that need > >> to tag > >>>> those releases don't need to update their workflow first? > >>>> > >>>> Presuming everyone still agrees that we get value out of JIRA, I think > >> we > >>>> need update our committer guidelines to expressly remind folks to > >> check on > >>>> things like commit messages before merging PRs, as well as to ensure > >> folks > >>>> use the "squash and merge" option to keep the git history less > >> complicated. > >>>> Probably a good time to add text about the importance of backporting, > >> since > >>>> there isn't a github UI for doing that. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sounds good. > >>> > >>> Use this thread to list what needs documentation? (Agree with the "Need > >> to > >>> sort all of this out and provide clarity now before a switch over." > from > >>> Andrew). > >>> > >>> What should the commit be like? Should be like now? What about that > ugly > >>> bleed that happens when the first line is too long and gets dumped into > >> the > >>> textbox below ... which then becomes the log IIRC. > >>> > >>> When do we do the squash merge? Is that the committer who does this > after > >>> rounds of review? > >>> > >>> I like Andrew's list. > >>> > >>> On the 'You can't fix a branch-1 issue where the code is different in > >>> branch-2 and up by opening a PR against master', this is a prob. at > least > >>> with our current 'process'. We don't do a JIRA per push because it is > >> just > >>> a bunch of busy work. Do we have to do this now (any alternatives?) > >>> > >>> Thanks for starting this up Sean, > >>> S > >> >
