To me this is the most reasoned and pragmatic approach. It seems very prudent to tweak the things that aren’t great about the current setup rather than chase after the latest fad. Github isn’t without its own tradeoffs and warts and the grass isn’t always greener, as they say.
Eric From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Wilkins Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:20 PM To: JETTY user mailing list Cc: Jetty @ Eclipse developer discussion list Subject: Re: [jetty-users] Github Hosting of Jetty 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: +1 On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Jesse McConnell <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ jetty-users mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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-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
