On 2013-01-14, Christopher Currens wrote: > I think that moving activity to GitHub _should_ be easy, although there are > still a few "gotchas". I'm guessing that a large reason the ASF insists on > hosting their own code is for legal reasons, particularly when it comes to > the Contributor License Agreement. At the very least, we can't accept pull > requests to the project until a CLA is signed by the user.
I'd say this depends on the size of the contribution. A pull request in itself is legaly by no means different from a patch attached to a JIRA issue. This shouldn't make things more or less difficult than it is now. You wouldn't require a CLA for a few lines of code, but you'd do it for a complete feature. I don't think github could be the primary SCM, the ASF git would have to remain the leading source so post-commit hooks wouldn't cut it. TBH I don't know all reasons myself and don't intend to defend rules I haven't made. The rule that releases have to be cut from an SCM hosted at the ASF is set into stone - and actually one I understand and am willing to back :-) Would we really need to do a full move to github for you (all, not you Chris or Troy in particular) to feel comfortable? From the POV of a non-committer contributor it shouldn't make much of a difference if the pull request is really merged via the github UI or via a process performed by a committer on the ASF repo that is then replicated over to github. Or does it? Stefan
