Hey Geoff. All credits go to the infra team on this one, they were super
responsive!
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 14:48 Geoff Macartney
wrote:
> Wow that was quick. Thanks Thomas!
>
> Geoff
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 10:58 Thomas Bouron
> wrote:
>
> > Erratum: we now have a team for the people who
Wow that was quick. Thanks Thomas!
Geoff
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 10:58 Thomas Bouron
wrote:
> Erratum: we now have a team for the people who did the Gitbox <-> GitHub
> link, which gives committers the ability to merge PR directly from the
> GitHub UI
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 10:18
Erratum: we now have a team for the people who did the Gitbox <-> GitHub
link, which gives committers the ability to merge PR directly from the
GitHub UI
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 10:18 Thomas Bouron
wrote:
> Migration successful[1]. It means that committers can push to either
> Gitbox or
Migration successful[1]. It means that committers can push to either Gitbox
or GitHub (still cannot merge directly through the UI though)
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17440?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Aall-tabpanel
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 08:44 Thomas
Hi all.
I think we have reached a consensus here as there is no +0 or -1.
I went ahead and created an INFRA ticket[1] to request the move.
Best.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17440
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 13:53 John Campbell
wrote:
> No strong feelings, so +1 from me
>
>
No strong feelings, so +1 from me
John Campbell
Software Engineer
Cloudsoft | Bringing Business to the Cloud
E: john.campb...@cloudsoftcorp.com
M: 07779 576614
T: -
L: www.linkedin.com/in/john-campbell-42105267
Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
> On 13 Dec 2018, at 09:31, Duncan
+1
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:42 Richard Downer wrote:
> Brooklyn team,
>
> Apart from myself, I don't think anyone has clearly come out in favour or
> opposed to this. I'd rather we got consensus and moved to gitbox early - so
> that if some people do object, we have time to work out the
+1 for gitbox
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 20:29, Paul Campbell
wrote:
> +1 move to gitbox
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 16:56 Aled Sage
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > We need "Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)" - I
> > interpreted that as us needing a formal vote, but if an informal
+1 move to gitbox
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 16:56 Aled Sage +1 from me.
>
> We need "Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)" - I
> interpreted that as us needing a formal vote, but if an informal email
> thread will do then that's fine with me
>
> Aled
>
>
> On 12/12/2018 16:41,
Sorry Richard, it's a +1 from me too
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:08 Mark McKenna wrote:
> +1 Moving to gitbox makes sense
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 16:56 Aled Sage
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > We need "Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)" - I
> > interpreted that as us needing a
+1 Moving to gitbox makes sense
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 16:56 Aled Sage +1 from me.
>
> We need "Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)" - I
> interpreted that as us needing a formal vote, but if an informal email
> thread will do then that's fine with me
>
> Aled
>
>
> On
+1 from me.
We need "Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)" - I
interpreted that as us needing a formal vote, but if an informal email
thread will do then that's fine with me
Aled
On 12/12/2018 16:41, Richard Downer wrote:
Brooklyn team,
Apart from myself, I don't
Brooklyn team,
Apart from myself, I don't think anyone has clearly come out in favour or
opposed to this. I'd rather we got consensus and moved to gitbox early - so
that if some people do object, we have time to work out the objections with
infra, before we are involuntarily moved.
Thoughts,
Hi Geoff,
Moving to gitbox seems to be a no-brainer to me. It won't affect our
contributor's processes, and it makes our committer's processes easier.
+1 to making an active move to gitbox.
I'm personally not concerned by the date, but after Christmas and early in
the new year would be fine.
Oops sorry I mean Aled of course.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 21:12 Geoff Macartney,
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> The way I read it, we just request to move to gitbox - "Initially, we are
> asking that projects voluntarily request to move their repositories to
> gitbox, hence this email." I *think* once we
Hi Alex,
The way I read it, we just request to move to gitbox - "Initially, we are
asking that projects voluntarily request to move their repositories to
gitbox, hence this email." I *think* once we move then people have the
choice of committing either to gitbox directly or to Github and the two
Hi Brooklyners,
Looks like we'll have to move Brooklyn to gitbox. Any thoughts on when to
do this? The voluntary timeframe is between now and January 9th 2019, and
it might be convenient to get this done in the presumably slack period
around Christmas.
The process being
- Consensus in the
Hi Brooklyn community members,
We use https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/brooklyn, so this impacts us.
We have the choice of waiting a month or two, or volunteering to move to
either gitbox.apache.org OR github [1] for our development and code pushes.
Being able to merge pull requests
[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
19 matches
Mail list logo
