On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:55 PM Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > On 2017-07-06 00:35, Suneel Marthi wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > > > >> On 2017-07-05 22:16, Suneel Marthi wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 2017-07-05 20:31, Suneel Marthi wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Just this week, Apache OpenNLP moved all of their repos to gitbox. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Hmm, just checked their mailinglists and only found one single thread > >>>> voting > >>>> on that move, again without *any* context. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b2b7c066b79f1f13f733b9b > >>> 205c71c57e156a7577a14b7061cbc8610@%3Cdev.opennlp.apache.org%3E > >>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b2b7c066b79f1f13f733b9 > >>> b205c71c57e156a7577a14b7061cbc8610@%3Cdev.opennlp.apache.org%3E> > >>> > >>> > >> Yes, that's the one single thread I could find. > >> But no argument or context there either. > >> Maybe everyone voting on this at openNLP already knows everything about > >> gitbox, > >> or they just voted blindly, hoping for the best? > >> > >> I'm happy to vote on this, but I'm still clueless for what. > > > > > > With the present setup (without gitbox): this is how u have to merge the > > PRs (the cumbersome, manual way) - > > http://mahout.apache.org/developers/github.html > > > > With gitbox setup, this is how u do it (the way its supposed to be, see > the > > section merging a Pull Request) - > http://opennlp.apache.org/using-git.html > > > > Thanks, that is helpful, even if IMO still very thin, too thin, > documentation. > > So I understand that with gitbox the (primary?) upstream repository to > push to > now is @github, no longer @apache. Or might this be both? > > However https://github.com/apache/opennlp still indicates it is mirrored > from > git://git.apache.org/opennlp.git. > Then are these now bidirectionally synchronized? If so, then how are > conflicts > resolved/prevented, shouldn't there some guidelines/rules for that? > Is it still allowed or even possible to push to the repository @apache? > > The OpenNLP website doesn't provide any help or explanation either, while I > think important usage rules like these need to be spelled out and > documented by > the project. > > Another question: will we (have to) stick to using JIRA for issue > tracking, or > with gitbox might github issue tracking be used as well? > Note: I think the latter to be not such a great idea. > Also: is it possible to add JIRA integration with the Github repository? >
Great question. IIRC, there is no real requirement to use JIRA for a project's defect tracking, it is just common to do so. Any particular reason you dislike GitHub issues? It might further simplify the workflow. > > OpenNLP JIRA issues don't show or link to/index related git commits while > IMO > *that* would be very useful to have. > > Anyhow, I understand the benefit of directly using and pushing to github > so I'm OK and +1 on moving to gitbox if this now is an 'endorsed' solution > at > Apache. > > But I also strongly dislike the fact there is zero documentation and also > no > Apache guidelines how gitbox can and may, and may not, be used. > Agree on the lack of documentation. Since @smarthi is a big proponent, maybe he will improve the documentation ;) > > Ate > > > > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> If anything, it greatly simplifies committer workflow as Steve's > >>>>> mentioned > >>>>> before. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> How, in which way? > >>>> Sure, I get github and git in general, but I cannot find *any* > >>>> explanation > >>>> or documentation concerning gitbox. > >>>> > >>>> I won't, can't really, vote positively on this without some context. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2017-07-05 19:22, Suneel Marthi wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is a vote to move all streams repos to Gitbox, some of the > other > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> projects have started to move their repos to gitbox. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This was discussed before, and while I probably will be +1, > >>>>>> I'm still clueless what gitbox provides, allows, enabled and what > >>>>>> restrictions/limitations it imposes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> While I suppose it to be 'cool' and 'it'll be great', as (P)PMC we > >>>>>> should *know* what we're getting (or accepting) by moving to gitbox, > >>>>>> *before* deciding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here's my +1 binding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This vote will close in 72 hrs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >
