I believe Github would provide more convenience and if dual system is approved then we should use Github as the preferred master. Chetan Mehrotra
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 11:21 +0200, Konrad Windszus wrote: >> > - account linking and personal access token generation are one-time >> > actions that take little time to perform >> >> right, but at least for the sling-site case committing to gitbox is >> even less effort, because every committer already has HTTPS write >> access to that repo. I had some troubles with the linking because it >> seems that after enabling 2fa on Github there is a delay of up to 30 >> minutes until the daemon picks up the change on ASF side. > > Yes, that is documented at https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/ . > >> > - making github the preferred push repository makes me more >> > confident >> > that we won't have any conflicts due to merging pull requests >> >> not sure how ASF gitbox and Github are syncing exactly and what >> happens in case of conflicts. Do you have any source available which >> explains the process more in detail? Also to me it is not clear which >> URL to include there: SSH based or HTTPS based? > > Unfortunately no, that this is part of why I support one definite > 'master' git repo to use. > > I would favour HTTPS as it's probably not filtered anywhere, whereas > SSH is sometimes blocked by firewalls. > >> > - automation is more readily available with github rather than >> > gitbox >> > and we may choose to add more automation in the future >> >> you are probably referring to the Github API for which there is no >> alternative on the ASF side. I agree with that as well. Also having >> SSH authentication available at Github is a big pro (but should not >> be required for publishing the sling site though) > > Yes, agreed, we should not require SSH for publishing. > >> >> But please also consider the other points: >> > >> > Also, pushing to github is a supported setup, this was why we >> > decided >> > to go with gitbox in the first place [1]. Pushing to the ASF repos >> > sort >> > of defeats the purpose of that. >> >> Don't agree with that. Pushing to ASF repos does not prevent anyone >> from using the Github repos. >> It is just less obvious that you can also use Github. > > That circles back to how stable we think the dual-master setup is. Yes, > we can try and use gitbox as a canonical repository and use Github as a > remote only when needed. > >> >> The main question to me is: how stable do we consider each of the two >> repos? >> IMHO the gitbox repo URL is much more stable as Github could >> theoretically end at any point in time the collaboration with the ASF >> and just would no longer provide that service for free. Modifying the >> documentation and poms afterwards would be a big hassle. >> >> I guess providing Maven artifacts not only via Maven Central but >> primarily through the ASF dist server is a very similar requirement ( >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#distribution). >> What do others think? > > My recollection is that the dual system is approved since a push to > Github is automatically replicated to ASF servers - the source still > lives on the ASF repos. > > ----- > > Anyway, my understanding of what we aim to do might be wrong and since > no one else seems to desire a canonical Github URL I'll switch the > sling-site repo to publish via gitbox later today or early tomorrow. > > Robert >
