LGTM Ignasi, When you say "We can continue doing our stuff as-usual" but also "We'll be able to use GitHub features directly (merge PRs, etc)", do you mean the merge/commit process will change to use Github or we'll keep both ways? I guess we should just move to GH features, to keep it simple.
It will be good to remove the custom sync jobs and maybe we could use some GH advanced features as githooks and so, and the migration process shouldn't be that complicated. About the "locking" the current repos i don't think it's possible, so i'd suggest to add a Pull Request Template with a warning redirecting to the new .org So yeah, +1 On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 08:59, Andrea Turli <andrea.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Ignasi for bringing this up. > > I think I'd prefer to go with the "recommended" ASF way using the tools > offered by them > I'm not familiar with GitBox and maybe others are in my same position so I > think it could be useful to have docs to evaluate the GitBox option (how > much overhead is required in the initial stage, what's the long term > benefit and so on) although I do trust your judgment and the two options > you've sketched out are very sensible to me. > > I'm also thinking, is it possible to "lock down" a Github repo (or an > entire organisation) so that nobody can open PRs against? if so, we should > document how and where to open the PR instead and naturally move to Apache > organisation. Wdyt? > > Andrea > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:07 PM 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 > > >
