Just answered the incubator thread clarifying our workflow. El 04/02/2014 01:33, "Andrew Bayer" <andrew.ba...@gmail.com> escribió:
> We're probably not 100% ideal on the ICLA side - I really, really want > GitHub to add an ICLA-or-copyright-assignment option to pull requests, so > that we can make this explicit. But we're not in a bad place here, just not > quite as clear as I'd like to see. > > That said, Jake's a bit confused as to our workflow. I think he's under the > impression that we push actual commits to GH first and then from there to > ASF - i.e., that we follow the full pull request workflow, when in fact we > just use pull requests as our code review etc process. If we were actually > doing what he seems to think we're doing, yeah, that'd be a real problem > and I'd've thrown up barriers to it - and hell, we never would have > graduated! So if someone would like to educate Jake as to what we're really > doing, I think we can get this cleared up. > > A. > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Ignasi Barrera <ignasi.barr...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > 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 > > >
