Thanks Ismael for initiating this discussion. I am in favor for adopting Gitbox for its clean improvements since many of us have shared the pain of managing PRs for long time.
About this potential downsides, subjectively I feel these two arguments are quite handle-able. The only concern I had about cherry-picking to other branches, which is a very common usage of the script tool we used today. So I'd suggest simplifying that script to help with cherry-picking (currently we only do up-stream cherry-picking, but we could also consider allow both upstream and downstream cherry-picking) than completely discard it. Guozhang On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Ismael Juma <[email protected]> wrote: > One thing I forgot to mention, many projects have requested and been using > GitBox for a while: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15271?jql= > project%20%3D%20INFRA%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C% > 20Closed)%20AND%20component%20%3D%20GitBox%20ORDER%20BY% > 20updated%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Ismael Juma <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > The Apache Infra team has started a new project earlier this year called > > GitBox that supports two-way synchronization between GitHub and > > git-wip-us.apache.org and, most importantly, provides GitHub write > access > > to committers. GitBox is not generally available yet, but individual > > projects can ask to be migrated. > > > > I think we should migrate kafka and kafka-site to GitBox. The main > benefit > > is that pull request management will be hugely improved for committers: > > > > 1. Reviewers functionality will become available > > > > 2. Pull requests will be assignable to GitHub users > > > > 3. We will be able to assign labels to issues > > > > 4. We will be able to merge pull requests directly via GitHub instead of > > using the merge script > > > > 5. Committers will be able to close old and stale PRs > > > > 6. We will be able to use protected branches to restrict merges via > GitHub > > to only be allowed if tests pass and the PR has been approved by at least > > one committer > > > > A couple of potential downsides: > > > > 1. To avoid weird behaviour (even though two way synchronization exists), > > we'd want all committers to always push to GitHub, but this won't be > > enforced. That is, git-wip-us.apache.org will still be writable. Given > > the small number of active committers, this seems to be a minor issue. > > > > 2. If we decide to drop the merge script in favour of GitHub, some of the > > functionality will have to be done manually. GitHub supports "squash and > > merge" via the UI, so the main things that will have to be done manually > > are (1) Ensuring that the commit message follows the right format (2) > Close > > the JIRA ticket. I think this is OK, but we could allow both options > (merge > > and GitHub UI). If we want to allow both options, we'd just change the > > default push repository in the script to be GitHub. > > > > All in all, I think this is a clear improvement and fixes a lot of the > > pull request management pain points we've been facing. Given that, I'd > like > > to move quickly, if possible. > > > > Please share your thoughts below and if people are in favour, I'll start > a > > vote. > > > > Ismael > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
