> Am 07.03.2022 um 02:53 schrieb Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>:
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 12:17 PM Stefan Eissing <ste...@eissing.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 04.03.2022 um 18:40 schrieb Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 4, 2022, at 6:17 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 9:05 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A question: Would it be easier for all this if we moved to being Github
>>>>> canon?
>>>>
>>>> I think it is much more straightforward. The original work, reviews
>>>> and travis results are all in the same place and nothing is copied
>>>> around.
>>>> I have had the same thought a few times this week. But I was hesitant
>>>> to reopen that thread/discussion because I'm pessimistic we can get
>>>> anywhere on it.
>>>
>>> I think we are far beyond that point where staying with svn/bugzilla is
>>> actively
>>> hurting the project for little or no benefit.
>>>
>>> I'd +1 a switch just to get real issue management and PRs.
>>
>> +1
>
> +1, agreed that it will simplify our "daily" and overall workflow.
I'd really like, as a reviewer of backports, you can:
- see that it passes all our tests. No need to patch/compile/test locally.
- see the diff and comment/question on specific lines
- have exactly merged what you looked at
> I wouldn't like that committers/PMC that don't have a github account
> could not participate in the new workflow though, at least for code
> contributions, not that I have a particular concern with github today
> but I wouldn't want to depend on my acceptance of their terms of
> service (or evolution thereof) for my contributions to httpd.
This is a fair point. github has suspended accounts in the past
based on criteria the ASF may not find agreeable.
> But it will always be possible to commit and create branches directly
> in git.a.o anyway, thus propose backports in STATUS still for those
> who want (the ci would run on the backport branch though no github PR
> would be created in this case I think, thus voting would have to stay
> in STATUS and the merge be manual for such backport proposals), yet
> that looks legitimate to me.
With the 2.4.* and trunk* patterns, we should run the Travis CIs for
all matching branches. In STATUS, we link the branch/PR.
>
> As for the comments/changes/edits/reviews in github I'm not sure that
> they all get forwarded to notifications@ or dev@ today, but that's
> good enough for me so far.
>
>
> Regards;
> Yann.
