I found a Jira ticket requesting moving some project's GIT from git-wip-us to
gitbox.
I updated our google spreadsheet on git

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1k4XpPA0YFzOp2bDtkXXGbXEN4bdu4u-ummTdn8tvd_Q/edit#gid=0

with a row describing this.  I also wrote to infra users list pointing out that 
all the links you get to via googling, at the top, keep referring to what is 
probably the now old git-wip-us site; and also pointing out this conflicting 
instructions.

-Marshall

On 10/16/2018 3:00 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> For working with apache-writable git repos, there are two conflicting sets of
> instructions:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/  and
> https://reference.apache.org/committer/git
>
> These say to use quite different URLs for cloning from, if you're a committer.
> e.g.
>
> (git-wip-us): git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/reponame.git  
> (for committers)
> (git-wip-us): git clone  http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/reponame.git  
> (for non-committers)
> (reference):  git clone https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/reponame.git
> (reference):  git clone  http://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/reponame.git
>  
> What's the meaning of gitbox vs git-wi-us?  
>
> I see uima-uimafit under the gitbox address, but not under the git-wip-us one.
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 10/16/2018 2:03 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> For working on our own projects, where we have "permissions", is it correct 
>> to
>> think that
>>
>> 1) at the Apache writeable-Git spot, we go to the repo, and clone it to our
>> local computer,
>>
>> 2) on the local clone, make a branch
>>
>> 3) do changes, test etc., and commit to the branch
>>
>> 4) push the branch back to writable-Git spot (because we have committer 
>> permissions)
>>
>> 5) ask the "owner" (or maybe pretend to be the owner) to "pull" the branch 
>> into
>> the master, after they are satisfied.
>>
>> So in this case, there's no need to make a fork of the repo on the Apache
>> writeable-Git spot, correct?  That was only needed if there were no 
>> permissions
>> to push the new branch back into the original repo?
>>
>> ======
>>
>> In a previous reply, when you don't have permissions, it said: go to the 
>> GitHub
>> website, fork the "maven-gpg-plugin"repo under your own GitHub account, then
>> clone *that*.
>>
>> When this mentions "the GitHub website", does this refer to 
>> github.com/my-spots,
>> or github.com/apache/some-new-repo-I-create.  In other words, should we try 
>> to
>> put forks for this purpose under the "apache" "section" of github?  What's 
>> the
>> right "protocol"?
>>
>> Cheers. -Marshall                                                            
>>    
>>
>> On 10/10/2018 4:58 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> On 9. Oct 2018, at 21:45, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> just curious, why doesn't this work:
>>>>
>>>> 1) clone project to local pc
>>>> 2) create branch, make updates
>>>> 3) commit changes
>>>> 4) create a pull request for that commit
>>> Because in step 3, you only commit to your local clone.
>>> In order to create a pull request, the code needs to be
>>> in a GitHub repo which is accessible by the receiving 
>>> party. So between 3 and 4, you'd have to push your branch
>>> to such a repository.
>>>
>>>> Is it because with this approach, my pull request would somehow need to
>>>> reference my clone on my local pc which others of course don't have access 
>>>> to?
>>>> I kind of thought the pull request would "encapuslate" all the info it 
>>>> needed,
>>>> sort of like a patch.
>>> Imagine a pull request like a glorified issue which has special fields for 
>>> source and target branch. The PR is only metadata with pointers into 
>>> code repositories on GitHub. I does not actually contain changes itself.
>>>
>>>> For this particular case, what I did was:
>>>> 1) clone project to local pc
>>>> 2) create branch, make updates
>>>> 3) make a "git"-style "patch" and attach the patch to the Jira.
>>> That works, but of course you loose all the nice things about the
>>> pull request such as:
>>>
>>> - ability to discuss the code line-by-line
>>> - ability by the receiving party to check out your code as a branch and 
>>> collaborate with you (i.e. commit to your branch)
>>> - continuous integration builds (if configured by the receiving party)
>>> - ...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -- Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>

Reply via email to