Get over the heartache and brand loyalty and get on rw git. Github isn't the only game in town anymore for git hosting, so don't feel trapped by infra just because it's all they've got in the tank.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:07 PM Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
