On 10/08/2019 10:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:13 AM Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com > <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an > > increase in contributions and contributors... > > > > Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the > > foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a > > discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 > > years of this project :) > > Can we use Travis CI as well? If so I am +1 on moving to github, being > able to easily configure a consistent CI across branches and PRs will be > a major improvement over the status quo. (I have no idea how buildbot > works or how to improve it and it's unusuable before commits) > > > Travis CI is possible *today* ... since the svn commits are replicated over to > github, Travis can pick them up and run tests. Just file an INFRA ticket to > enable it. > > Cheers, > -g > Hi Greg,
That does not cover Joe's note "...and PRs...". Basically having a transparent, dead simple set of gate smoke tests on a handful of major platforms and config flavours/layouts. Linux and Windows can be used in this capacity for free (as in free beer). It makes almost no sense unless all committers agree that all code commits pass through PR gate, i.e. no direct commits. Almost all concerns about git and its presumed complexity can be addressed by adhering to a fixed workflow. GitHub PR workflow is one of the options. Reading the email thread, I get the vibe that the community would have to put out the SVN vs. Git flame first though :) K. Michal Karm Babacek -- Sent from my Hosaka Ono-Sendai Cyberspace 7
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
