On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 AM Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On 4/12/23 2:02 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 1:31 PM Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 6:36 AM Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:26 PM Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:18 PM ylavic <notificati...@github.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> @ylavic approved this pull request. > >>>>> > >>>>> Three approvals to get ci started? > >>>> > >>>> Nope.. It seems that gh actions don't run for PRs whatever we do. > >>>> The docs[1] say that there should be an "Approve and run" button near > >>>> the "workflow awaiting approval" text, but it's not the case for httpd > >>>> mirror, while approving the whole PR looks inefficient.. > >>> > >>> We (PMC/committers) once had the right to close any PRs, but that > >>> seems to not be the case anymore either. > >>> Something changed since > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/g7bb70ymlmkzjlx1rpvq46dwz54qcpdb > >>> probably. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Any more ideas? Help from infra needed? > >>>> > >>>> Regards; > >>>> Yann. > >>>> > >>>> [1] > >>>> https://docs.github.com/en/actions/managing-workflow-runs/approving-workflow-runs-from-public-forks > >> > >> > >> We are chatting with Daniel about it on ASF slack. > > > > Ah ok, I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24457 FWIW.. > > > > I would like to bring this back here, now that we have an answer in the > ticket. > The root cause for the current situation seems to be that our Github > repository is just a read only mirror of our Subversion > repository. Approving PR's requires write permissions to the Github > repository. > > As far as I understand from the ticket we have two options: > > 1. We establish a monitoring process on PR's that ensures that we detect > misuse of Github actions by non committers. > Then Infra could set the PR's back to "auto-approval". > > 2. We switch from Subversion to Git and use Git as our read / write main > repository. > > My 2 cents on the options: > > 1. I am not sure which exact monitoring will be sufficient, but it may put > some larger burden on us to ensure that we > detect misuse in a timely manner. Furthermore the question to me will be > what we can do to stop misuse quickly if we > detect it. > > 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We > have some closer ties to Subversion by some > overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our > very own dogfood here by using Subversion. > We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of > our development tools from an Apache license to GPL. > Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check > if all of the current active committers are fine > using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we > use Git I would like us to leverage the features of > Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if > active committers would have issues with Github.
I think r/w github is the way to go, but I know from previous threads there are strong feelings against it. Right now we seem to not be optimized for either maintainers or contributors, it's just inertia. I think it's bad for our image.
