Re: website to git Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
Replies inline. ajs6f > On Dec 12, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > I'd like to move the site. +1! > On 12/12/2018 15:25, ajs6f wrote: >> I'm all in favor, and in favor of moving the site to git at the same time. >> Indeed, we've discussed that latter before, but done nothing. >> Bruno-- I think you had some thoughts about the site question? I seem to >> remember that you did such a migration with another Apache project? > > Wasn't one of the issues that CMS is tied to svn for publication? Or am I > misremembering? I don't remember, which means nothing. :grin: It very well may be. See next point. > If so, then then move needs the website converting (Jekyll?). The last time we talked about this, that was an assumption (moving to a new build tool). I seem to recall that Bruno offered some experience from his work doing the same thing for another project. > If that's true we could get a git repo for the new site, work on it as and > when, then swap the live site. > > Does someone want to see this through? I would, albeit _slowly_, if I knew anything about the prospective build tool, or if someone else who does can be available for a bit of help. >Andy > >> ajs6f >>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: Hi Andy, My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. >>> >>> I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to >>> INFRA because they asked nicely. >>> It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago but I don’t recall a resolution. I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn. Regards, Chris > On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > Committers - > > Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? > > https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" > >Andy > > On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here >> "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your >> development and code pushes" >> unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to >> have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access >> on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked >> to your Apache account (which I do). >> The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have >> managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a >> technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been >> asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either >> service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on >> both access points. >> JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. >> Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set >> that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! >> We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my >> only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is >> better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens. >> For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, >> shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own >> timescales. >> Thoughts? >> Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. >> Andy >> But please, not go back to SVN :-) >> On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>> [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE >>>DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] >>> >>> Hello Apache projects, >>> I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the >>> git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming >>> months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which >>> includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF >>> commit access via gitbox.apache.org. >>> >>> ## Why this move? ## >>> The move comes as a result of retiring the
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
I have released Jena, at least once (I think maybe twice and I've forgotten!). It is _easy_. A lot is already scripted or automated in Maven. Honestly, the worst part is dealing with our SVN-based site, because it's big enough that one often has to break up large commits. It's really easy, and even fun. :grin: ajs6f > On Dec 12, 2018, at 3:26 PM, Bruno P. Kinoshita > wrote: > > I only released Apache Commons components. Would Jena be too > different/complex? > > I have GitHub 2FA, ASF gpg keys (4096), Maven settings.xml set up for ASF > maven repo. So if the process is not too hard for a beginner, I can volunteer > to either sidekick and review/learn the process, or to RM 3.10.0. > > I haven't done much Jena development, so maybe I can help running releases > and website migration & issues for now :) (also want to discuss Fuseki JS web > layer later, as backbone.js isn't being used much lately, and we could try > something simpler perhaps). > > > Cheers > Bruno > > > > From: Andy Seaborne > To: dev@jena.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2018 7:29 AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github > > > > > > On 12/12/2018 15:53, Chris Tomlinson wrote: >> Hi Andy, >> >>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: >>>> Hi Andy, >>>> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno >>>> once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our >>>> individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. >>>> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending >>>> jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can >>>> be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the >>>> forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. >>> >>> I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to >>> INFRA because they asked nicely. >> >> I certainly agree that we’d be better served by orchestrating a voluntary >> move. How far away is 3.10.0? > > Ssh! but I _hope_ end of Dec. Ish. Maybe slip into Jan. > > I'm not so worried about the git repo changes affecting things very > much. It happens automatically and at a point in time. Might/should > work to just edit .git/config > > > Andy > >> >> Regards, >> Chris >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
I only released Apache Commons components. Would Jena be too different/complex? I have GitHub 2FA, ASF gpg keys (4096), Maven settings.xml set up for ASF maven repo. So if the process is not too hard for a beginner, I can volunteer to either sidekick and review/learn the process, or to RM 3.10.0. I haven't done much Jena development, so maybe I can help running releases and website migration & issues for now :) (also want to discuss Fuseki JS web layer later, as backbone.js isn't being used much lately, and we could try something simpler perhaps). Cheers Bruno From: Andy Seaborne To: dev@jena.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2018 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github On 12/12/2018 15:53, Chris Tomlinson wrote: > Hi Andy, > >> On Dec 12, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: >>> Hi Andy, >>> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno >>> once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our >>> individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. >>> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending >>> jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can >>> be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the >>> forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. >> >> I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA >> because they asked nicely. > > I certainly agree that we’d be better served by orchestrating a voluntary > move. How far away is 3.10.0? Ssh! but I _hope_ end of Dec. Ish. Maybe slip into Jan. I'm not so worried about the git repo changes affecting things very much. It happens automatically and at a point in time. Might/should work to just edit .git/config Andy > > Regards, > Chris >
Re: website to git Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
Coming back from a recess, so I think issues like these are easier for me to help with - and I did something similar before. It shouldn't be too complicated, but not sure if we can use Jekyll. As far as I know, GitHub pages runs Ruby + Jekyll for every commit to the GitHub pages branch. Apache's gitpubsub may not have Ruby or the Jekyll gem to build the website (I think that's why we used JBake in OpenNLP, but it had been decided before I started working on the issue). Cheers Bruno From: Andy Seaborne To: dev@jena.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2018 7:25 AM Subject: website to git Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github I'd like to move the site. On 12/12/2018 15:25, ajs6f wrote: > I'm all in favor, and in favor of moving the site to git at the same time. > Indeed, we've discussed that latter before, but done nothing. > > Bruno-- I think you had some thoughts about the site question? I seem to > remember that you did such a migration with another Apache project? Wasn't one of the issues that CMS is tied to svn for publication? Or am I misremembering? If so, then then move needs the website converting (Jekyll?). If that's true we could get a git repo for the new site, work on it as and when, then swap the live site. Does someone want to see this through? Andy > > ajs6f > >> On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: >>> Hi Andy, >>> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno >>> once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our >>> individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. >>> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending >>> jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can >>> be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the >>> forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. >> >> I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA >> because they asked nicely. >> >>> It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have >>> a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago >>> but I don’t recall a resolution. >>> I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue >>> since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn. >>> Regards, >>> Chris >>>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> >>>> Committers - >>>> >>>> Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? >>>> >>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>>> I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here >>>>> "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your >>>>> development and code pushes" >>>>> unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to >>>>> have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access >>>>> on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked >>>>> to your Apache account (which I do). >>>>> The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have >>>>> managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a >>>>> technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been >>>>> asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either >>>>> service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on >>>>> both access points. >>>>> JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. >>>>> Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set >>>>> that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! >>>>> We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my >>>>> only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, >>>>> and otherwise we do it and see what happens. >>>>> For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, >>>>> shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own >>>>> timescales. >>>>> Tho
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
We did the migration in Apache OpenNLP, moving also from the Apache CMS to a Java based alternative to Ruby Jekyll. But for Jena I think the easiest now would be to move everything to gitbox, and then use gitpubsub instead of svnpubsub to publish the site. Cheers Bruno From: ajs6f To: dev@jena.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2018 4:25 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github I'm all in favor, and in favor of moving the site to git at the same time. Indeed, we've discussed that latter before, but done nothing. Bruno-- I think you had some thoughts about the site question? I seem to remember that you did such a migration with another Apache project? ajs6f > On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > > On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: >> Hi Andy, >> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno >> once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our >> individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. >> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending >> jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can >> be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced >> move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. > > I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA > because they asked nicely. > >> It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have >> a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago but >> I don’t recall a resolution. >> I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue >> since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn. >> Regards, >> Chris >>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>> Committers - >>> >>> Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? >>> >>> https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" >>> >>>Andy >>> >>> On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here >>>> "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your >>>> development and code pushes" >>>> unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to >>>> have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on >>>> both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to >>>> your Apache account (which I do). >>>> The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have >>>> managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a >>>> technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked >>>> on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort >>>> of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on both access >>>> points. >>>> JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. >>>> Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set >>>> that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! >>>> We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only >>>> issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and >>>> otherwise we do it and see what happens. >>>> For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall >>>> we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales. >>>> Thoughts? >>>> Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. >>>> Andy >>>> But please, not go back to SVN :-) >>>> On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE >>>>>DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] >>>>> >>>>> Hello Apache projects, >>>>> I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the >>>>> git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming >>>>> months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which >>>>> includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF >>>>> commit access via gitbox.apache.org.
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
On 12/12/2018 15:53, Chris Tomlinson wrote: Hi Andy, On Dec 12, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: Hi Andy, My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA because they asked nicely. I certainly agree that we’d be better served by orchestrating a voluntary move. How far away is 3.10.0? Ssh! but I _hope_ end of Dec. Ish. Maybe slip into Jan. I'm not so worried about the git repo changes affecting things very much. It happens automatically and at a point in time. Might/should work to just edit .git/config Andy Regards, Chris
website to git Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
I'd like to move the site. On 12/12/2018 15:25, ajs6f wrote: I'm all in favor, and in favor of moving the site to git at the same time. Indeed, we've discussed that latter before, but done nothing. Bruno-- I think you had some thoughts about the site question? I seem to remember that you did such a migration with another Apache project? Wasn't one of the issues that CMS is tied to svn for publication? Or am I misremembering? If so, then then move needs the website converting (Jekyll?). If that's true we could get a git repo for the new site, work on it as and when, then swap the live site. Does someone want to see this through? Andy ajs6f On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: Hi Andy, My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA because they asked nicely. It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago but I don’t recall a resolution. I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn. Regards, Chris On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: Committers - Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" Andy On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes" unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your Apache account (which I do). The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points. JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens. For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales. Thoughts? Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. Andy But please, not go back to SVN :-) On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] Hello Apache projects, I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF commit access via gitbox.apache.org. ## Why this move? ## The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing will change in your workflow other than added features and access to GitHub. ## Timeframe for relocation ## Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over. To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need: - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list) - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
Hi Andy, > On Dec 12, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > > On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: >> Hi Andy, >> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno >> once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our >> individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. >> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending >> jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can >> be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced >> move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. > > I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA > because they asked nicely. I certainly agree that we’d be better served by orchestrating a voluntary move. How far away is 3.10.0? Regards, Chris
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
I'm all in favor, and in favor of moving the site to git at the same time. Indeed, we've discussed that latter before, but done nothing. Bruno-- I think you had some thoughts about the site question? I seem to remember that you did such a migration with another Apache project? ajs6f > On Dec 12, 2018, at 8:35 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > > On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: >> Hi Andy, >> My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno >> once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our >> individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. >> I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending >> jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can >> be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced >> move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. > > I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA > because they asked nicely. > >> It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have >> a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago but >> I don’t recall a resolution. >> I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue >> since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn. >> Regards, >> Chris >>> On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>> Committers - >>> >>> Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? >>> >>> https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" >>> >>>Andy >>> >>> On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes" unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your Apache account (which I do). The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points. JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens. For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales. Thoughts? Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. Andy But please, not go back to SVN :-) On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE >DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] > > Hello Apache projects, > I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the > git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming > months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which > includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF > commit access via gitbox.apache.org. > > ## Why this move? ## > The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the > hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we > have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to > ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the > underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing > will change in your workflow other than added features and access to > GitHub. > > ## Timeframe for relocation ## > Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move > their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary > timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects > are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After > this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within > one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over. > > To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need: > > - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list) > - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
On 11/12/2018 17:19, Chris Tomlinson wrote: Hi Andy, My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. I'd like to avoid a forced move, if nothing else, out of politeness to INFRA because they asked nicely. It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago but I don’t recall a resolution. I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn. Regards, Chris On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: Committers - Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" Andy On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes" unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your Apache account (which I do). The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points. JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens. For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales. Thoughts? Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. Andy But please, not go back to SVN :-) On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] Hello Apache projects, I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF commit access via gitbox.apache.org. ## Why this move? ## The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing will change in your workflow other than added features and access to GitHub. ## Timeframe for relocation ## Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over. To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need: - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list) - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos over to gitbox (as stated, this is highly automated and will take between a minute and an hour, depending on the size and number of your repositories) To sum up the preliminary timeline; - December 9th 2018 -January 9th 2019: Voluntary (coordinated) relocation - January 9th -February 6th: Mandated (coordinated) relocation - February 7th: All remaining repositories are mass migrated. This timeline may change to accommodate various scenarios. ## Using GitHub with ASF repositories ## When your project has moved, you are free to use either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes. To be able to use GitHub, please follow the primer at:
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
Hi Andy, My GH and ASF accounts are linked. As I understand the note from D.Gruno once jena is moved to GB then we can use either GB or GH or both in our individual workflows. For me just working with GH would be my choice. I’m not sure how far away 3.10.0 is (I’ve completed all of the pending jena-text updates for 3.10.0) but maybe it makes sense if that release can be completed prior to moving from git-wip-us without running into the forced move beginning on 7 Feb 2019. It would also be helpful to see the docs moved from SVN to GH/GB so we have a single environment. I think I saw this discussed briefly some time ago but I don’t recall a resolution. I agree that JIRA integration is key - it appears that it will continue since JIRA is used to control the migration from git-wip-us and svn. Regards, Chris > On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > Committers - > > Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? > > https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" > >Andy > > On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here >> "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your >> development and code pushes" >> unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have >> a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both >> services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your >> Apache account (which I do). >> The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed >> to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical >> level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the >> infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints >> that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points. >> JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, >> GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There >> again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! >> We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only >> issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and >> otherwise we do it and see what happens. >> For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall >> we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales. >> Thoughts? >> Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. >> Andy >> But please, not go back to SVN :-) >> On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>> [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE >>>DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] >>> >>> Hello Apache projects, >>> I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the >>> git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming >>> months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which >>> includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF >>> commit access via gitbox.apache.org. >>> >>> ## Why this move? ## >>> The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the >>> hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we >>> have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to >>> ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the >>> underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing >>> will change in your workflow other than added features and access to >>> GitHub. >>> >>> ## Timeframe for relocation ## >>> Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move >>> their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary >>> timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects >>> are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After >>> this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within >>> one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over. >>> >>> To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need: >>> >>> - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list) >>> - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos >>> over to gitbox (as stated, this is highly automated and will take >>> between a minute and an hour, depending on the size and number of >>> your repositories) >>> >>> To sum up the preliminary timeline; >>> >>> - December 9th 2018 -January 9th 2019: Voluntary (coordinated) >>> relocation >>> - January 9th -February 6th: Mandated (coordinated) relocation >>> - February 7th: All remaining repositories are mass migrated. >>> >>> This timeline may change to accommodate various scenarios. >>> >>> ## Using GitHub with ASF repositories ## >>> When your project has moved, you are free to use either the ASF >>> repository system
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
I've linked my account (many months ago). It changed nothing at all, not in Github, not elsewhere. I think we need to make the move for the project as a whole before that happens. (At a conference, but will try to reply to the larger migration question today-- TL;DR: I'm in favor.) ajs6f > On Dec 11, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > Committers - > > Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? > > https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" > >Andy > > On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here >> "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your >> development and code pushes" >> unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have >> a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both >> services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your >> Apache account (which I do). >> The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed >> to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical >> level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the >> infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints >> that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points. >> JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, >> GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There >> again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! >> We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only >> issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and >> otherwise we do it and see what happens. >> For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall >> we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales. >> Thoughts? >> Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. >> Andy >> But please, not go back to SVN :-) >> On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>> [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE >>>DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] >>> >>> Hello Apache projects, >>> I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the >>> git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming >>> months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which >>> includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF >>> commit access via gitbox.apache.org. >>> >>> ## Why this move? ## >>> The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the >>> hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we >>> have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to >>> ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the >>> underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing >>> will change in your workflow other than added features and access to >>> GitHub. >>> >>> ## Timeframe for relocation ## >>> Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move >>> their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary >>> timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects >>> are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After >>> this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within >>> one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over. >>> >>> To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need: >>> >>> - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list) >>> - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos >>> over to gitbox (as stated, this is highly automated and will take >>> between a minute and an hour, depending on the size and number of >>> your repositories) >>> >>> To sum up the preliminary timeline; >>> >>> - December 9th 2018 -January 9th 2019: Voluntary (coordinated) >>> relocation >>> - January 9th -February 6th: Mandated (coordinated) relocation >>> - February 7th: All remaining repositories are mass migrated. >>> >>> This timeline may change to accommodate various scenarios. >>> >>> ## Using GitHub with ASF repositories ## >>> When your project has moved, you are free to use either the ASF >>> repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development >>> and code pushes. To be able to use GitHub, please follow the primer >>> at: https://reference.apache.org/committer/github >>> >>> >>> We appreciate your understanding of this issue, and hope that your >>> project can coordinate voluntarily moving your repositories in a >>> timely manner. >>> >>> All settings, such as commit mail targets, issue linking, PR >>> notification schemes etc will automatically be migrated to gitbox as >>> well. >>> >>> With regards, Daniel on behalf
Re: [DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
Committers - Who has the link up for pushing to GH directly? https://gitbox.apache.org/ -> "Link GitHub and ASF accounts" Andy On 10/12/2018 16:11, Andy Seaborne wrote: I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes" unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your Apache account (which I do). The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points. JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens. For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales. Thoughts? Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. Andy But please, not go back to SVN :-) On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] Hello Apache projects, I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF commit access via gitbox.apache.org. ## Why this move? ## The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing will change in your workflow other than added features and access to GitHub. ## Timeframe for relocation ## Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over. To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need: - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list) - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos over to gitbox (as stated, this is highly automated and will take between a minute and an hour, depending on the size and number of your repositories) To sum up the preliminary timeline; - December 9th 2018 -January 9th 2019: Voluntary (coordinated) relocation - January 9th -February 6th: Mandated (coordinated) relocation - February 7th: All remaining repositories are mass migrated. This timeline may change to accommodate various scenarios. ## Using GitHub with ASF repositories ## When your project has moved, you are free to use either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes. To be able to use GitHub, please follow the primer at: https://reference.apache.org/committer/github We appreciate your understanding of this issue, and hope that your project can coordinate voluntarily moving your repositories in a timely manner. All settings, such as commit mail targets, issue linking, PR notification schemes etc will automatically be migrated to gitbox as well. With regards, Daniel on behalf of ASF Infra. PS:For inquiries, please reply to us...@infra.apache.org, not your project's dev list :-).
[DISCUSS] Move Jena repo to gitbox or github
I confess I don't completely understand the details/changes here "either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes" unless you can mix-and-match, in case anyone does not want to forced to have a GH account. gitbox.apache.org says "will be granted write-access on both services (gitbox and github)" if you have your GH account linked to your Apache account (which I do). The other unclarity is what happens about JIRA integration. We have managed to get people to use JIRA so whatever we may think about it at a technical level, we do have as a communication path. The Q has been asked on the infra list but no response yet. The text about either service sort of hints that that if there is an integration, it works on both access points. JIRA is useful during a release to find changes since last time. Obviously, GH issues and labels can be used for that but we need to set that up. There again, a clearout of old dead stuff would not be so bad! We have a release sometime soon (ish, maybe, whatever) and I think my only issue is controlling the switchover point in time, sooner is better, and otherwise we do it and see what happens. For workflow, if we have to fix on one tailored to GH or gitbox.a.o, shall we go GH? If it's both, we can start being more GH on our own timescales. Thoughts? Let's discuss for a few days and if nothing arises, run the vote. Andy But please, not go back to SVN :-) On 09/12/2018 20:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: [IF YOUR PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE GIT REPOSITORIES ON GIT-WIP-US PLEASE DISREGARD THIS EMAIL; IT WAS MASS-MAILED TO ALL APACHE PROJECTS] Hello Apache projects, I am writing to you because you may have git repositories on the git-wip-us server, which is slated to be decommissioned in the coming months. All repositories will be moved to the new gitbox service which includes direct write access on github as well as the standard ASF commit access via gitbox.apache.org. ## Why this move? ## The move comes as a result of retiring the git-wip service, as the hardware it runs on is longing for retirement. In lieu of this, we have decided to consolidate the two services (git-wip and gitbox), to ease the management of our repository systems and future-proof the underlying hardware. The move is fully automated, and ideally, nothing will change in your workflow other than added features and access to GitHub. ## Timeframe for relocation ## Initially, we are asking that projects voluntarily request to move their repositories to gitbox, hence this email. The voluntary timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, during which projects are free to either move over to gitbox or stay put on git-wip. After this phase, we will be requiring the remaining projects to move within one month, after which we will move the remaining projects over. To have your project moved in this initial phase, you will need: - Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list) - File a JIRA ticket with INFRA to voluntarily move your project repos over to gitbox (as stated, this is highly automated and will take between a minute and an hour, depending on the size and number of your repositories) To sum up the preliminary timeline; - December 9th 2018 -January 9th 2019: Voluntary (coordinated) relocation - January 9th -February 6th: Mandated (coordinated) relocation - February 7th: All remaining repositories are mass migrated. This timeline may change to accommodate various scenarios. ## Using GitHub with ASF repositories ## When your project has moved, you are free to use either the ASF repository system (gitbox.apache.org) OR GitHub for your development and code pushes. To be able to use GitHub, please follow the primer at: https://reference.apache.org/committer/github We appreciate your understanding of this issue, and hope that your project can coordinate voluntarily moving your repositories in a timely manner. All settings, such as commit mail targets, issue linking, PR notification schemes etc will automatically be migrated to gitbox as well. With regards, Daniel on behalf of ASF Infra. PS:For inquiries, please reply to us...@infra.apache.org, not your project's dev list :-).
