Hi Ignasi, Who would be getting the access for GitBox? Do new users would also get access? And if possible, can you please share the reference to request access?
Please share if there any other reference documents for same. Thanks Nishant On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:07 AM Ignasi Barrera <n...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi! > > There was a recent issue [1] with the repo sync that brought up to the > table our particular use of GitHub. During our incubation period, the ASF > was still studying how the GitHub integration would be, and by then we were > allowed to graduate and keep using our GitHub org, as long as every single > GitHub interaction reached a project mailing list, and we used the ASF Git > remote as the canonical repo. > > That is fine, but I'd like to propose to move to the ASF organization. The > ASF provides GitBox now, which allows to directly write on GitHub repos. > Moving to the ASF org would mean: > > * We can continue doing our stuff as-usual. > * We'll be able to use GitHub features directly (merge PRs, etc). > * We won't need our custom sync jobs to get our org in sync. > > * We'll have to "deprecate" the old organization and move users to the new > one. We can take as much time as we need for this. My suggested approach > would be to: > - For any incoming new pull request, ask the contributor to open it > against the Apache org. > - Review existing PRs and push them to the gitbox remote. > - Close old and stale pull requests and ask the contributor to reopen > against the Apache org. > - Cleanup the repo contents and leave just a README with a link to the > new repos. > > I see this as part of migrating existing legacy stuff to its proper home > (we are also transitioning our CI to the ASF Jenkins), which I think is a > positive thing. > > > What do you think about this move? Worth doing? > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16889 >
