I'm totally ok with our workflow. Don't want to make start a flame on that thread (as it won't help answering the question), but here is what I like:
* People is used to GitHub pull requests. I think it is the easiest path nowadays to contribute to a project, and it helps and enourages people to do so. So IMHO we should keep it. * Having the ICLA in place is not a must in our workflow. Only for big contributions or for companies contributing. But we are not asking for them in most patches. * There is no overhead added to make the code reach the ASF repos, as those are the only ones where commiters push changes. * It's true that we have to deal with our custom mirroring to the jclouds org, but we have already addressed that, have full control on the CI system and CloudBees people is nice :) On 3 February 2014 16:59, Andrew Phillips <aphill...@qrmedia.com> wrote: > Just following up on Jake Farrell's comment over at general@i.a.o [1]: > > "As for the Github workflows that are starting to be used, I am not a > proponent of them. These workflows are not ideal as they repositories are > not under any Asf control and infra can not help if there are any issues, > its up to the project to take care of its own. Also with the JClouds and > now Usergrid projects using this flow adds a lot of overhead for > initial contributions as they have in the workflow the requirement to > ensure an ICLA are on file for the contributor. Most committers do not have > access to see the status of this. Also since these projects are not working > directly against the primary repository it is up to them to ensure that > committers are the only ones submitting code to the primary repository and > then syncing that code at some point over to the ASF repositories in order > to make a release." > > Personally, I think our GitHub workflow works well for our contributor base, > and I don't feel as they committers suffer from exceptionally burdensome > overhead as a result. As far as I'm aware, we're also covering all the legal > bases that we need to cover. > > Still: anyone else see any problems with the current review and commit flow? > > ap > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/r6w7fmjqjg6guxc3
