For fun I'll add this pdf of the Eclipse process so that people can see in a more illustrated fashion what we are talking about: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
Note: We are starting at Figure 3. -- jesse mcconnell [email protected] On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Greg Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > I've been responsible for moving Jetty from SCCS to RCS, RCS to CVS, CVS to > SVN and finally SVN to GIT, while along the way migrating from mortbay to > sourceforge, sourceforge to codehaus, codehaus to eclipse. > > Experience from those moves suggests to me that moving can cause more > disruption than the benefits that it gains. > > I'm very content with the project being developed under the Eclipse > Foundation, it has provided an umbrella organisation that has not been too > intrusive in the technical development of the project, has imposed some > reasonable IP due diligence and provides hosting resources that while not > start of the art are capable, maintained and not far from the state of the > art. > > So I've got zero interest in moving the project away from the eclipse > foundation from an organisational point of view. > > > I am however keen to accept contributions in whatever form they are given > and github pull requests are a popular way to make contributions, and are > well supported with collaborative tools. The project has already > received 21 pull request on the github mirror and another 5 on a fork of the > mirror. > > In the past, we have simply rejected these PRs with a message asking for > patch contribution. However, it is already possible for us to directly > pull from these pull requests, so long as the contributor has signed an > eclipse CLA and referred to the PR in a bugzilla. So going forward, I > suggest that at the minimum we respond to PRs with a request for a CLA and > bugzilla, rather than asking for the contribution to be reformed. > > So my question is, will moving the canonical repository to github make this > process any easier? Maybe a little bit, but not so as the contributor > will notice. They will still need to sign a CLA and open a bugzilla. > The difference is that the committer processing the PR will be able to click > a button to get the merge rather than use command line git commands. > > > I think that we should look at this in stages. The first stage is to get > some more control over the PRs that are raised for the current github > mirror. We should be able to put suitable CONTRIBUTING file in place that > describes the CLA and bugzilla requirements. We should be able to > open/close the PRs as well as comment on them. > > I think we can then operate in that mode for a while and get some actual PRs > that we can process. The contributor should not see any difference in the > process. Once we have experience with that path and the processing of PRs, > then we can consider if it is worthwhile moving the canonical repository to > make the commiters task a little bit easier. > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 September 2014 01:52, Tamás Cservenák <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Jesse McConnell >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> https://wiki.eclipse.org/Social_Coding/Hosting_a_Project_at_GitHub#GitHub_Hooks >>> >>> Apparently things have progressed to the point within Eclipse that we >>> would be allowed to move our canonical repository from the eclipse >>> foundation to github. Within the team we are somewhat split on this >>> approach but ultimately this is something that should have some >>> feedback from the community at large. This is your opportunity! >>> >>> In my opinion, many of you have spoken already by finding the mirror >>> of jetty under eclipse/jetty.project and submitting pull >>> requests...which we historically have to reject because the allowed >>> process required the usage of either bugzilla and/or gerrit...and that >>> is only a mirror so anything accepted there would have been smoked on >>> the next mirror sync anyway. >>> >>> If anyone is violently for this sort of change, please speak >>> up....same if you are violently against! >>> >>> Note: in order for your pull request to be accepted you would still >>> have to have an eclipse foundation cla in place and we would still >>> follow all required ip policies and procedures....but you would at >>> least have some pretty colored UI elements that explain some of these >>> things. >>> >>> Thoughts? Feel free to reply to this thread or mail me directly if you >>> want to provide private feedback. >>> >>> Jesse >>> >>> >>> -- >>> jesse mcconnell >>> [email protected] >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jetty-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >>> from this list, visit >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jetty-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe >> from this list, visit >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users > > > > > -- > Greg Wilkins <[email protected]> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales > http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd. > > _______________________________________________ > jetty-dev mailing list > [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-dev _______________________________________________ jetty-users mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
