Re: GitHub workflows?

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
> wrote:

>> For what it's worth, on one dev list I'm on, pull requests make it to the
>> dev list, but commenting on a commit via the Github interface only triggers
>> a private notification -- the comment never makes it to our dev list.  We
>> mostly avoid Github commit comments for that reason, so inclusiveness is
>> not harmed -- but people new to Apache might not handle things that way.
>>
> We can forward those, if you want. Probably should.

I think that's worthwhile as a feature request.

(To be clear since I just became VP Legal, no one should take this as a ruling
resulting in a new requirement -- it's a feature request humbly submitted for
Infra to consider.  Right now I'm just wearing my usual "Incubator contributor
hat".  I will make sure it's obvious when I put on the "VP Legal hat".)

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: GitHub workflows?

[Niclas Hedhman]

Thanks Marvin for the pointers.
But my question is not so much whether we can accept pull requests or
handle GH issues. It is whether it is ok to be the *primary* workflow and
dev@ is an archive.

The podling is coming from a GitHub-only culture, and the core team in the
same company. S...

1. I think all development is pull requests, whether it is from committers
or external contributors. I.e. RTC. Hard to tell external from internal
patches, so to speak

2. the dev@ list receives all the Issue comments and pull requests.

3. A somewhat large number (300) of open GH issues are on the old GH
repository, brought over selectively, seemingly along with the work that
goes with them (but I could be wrong here).

3. Some decision-making is _likely_ happening face-to-face.

The overall effect is that if you are used to ASF projects, this podling
feels very different than most other projects here. dev@ is a cold place at
the moment, and I don't like it. A bit like some projects have tried to do
(nearly) "JIRA only" discussions, which I also found somewhat "off-putting".

Anyway, I will continue to nudge them in the "common direction" and shout
again if I feel there is a problem.

Cheers
Niclas



On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > So, the questions I would ask are, are all those comments making it to
> the
> > list?  And are the podling participants showing through their actions
> that
> > they understand inclusiveness, by ensuring that dev list readers are able
> > to
> > follow along?
> >
>
> Pull requests and issues, and the comments upon them are all delivered to
> an archived PMC mailing list. These tend to go to dev@, issues@, or
> notifications@ ... as a PMC chooses.
>
> I checked with Legal, and we are required to forward this stuff to a list.
>
>
> > For what it's worth, on one dev list I'm on, pull requests make it to the
> > dev
> > list, but commenting on a commit via the Github interface only triggers a
> > private notification -- the comment never makes it to our dev list.  We
> > mostly
> > avoid Github commit comments for that reason, so inclusiveness is not
> > harmed
> > -- but people new to Apache might not handle things that way.
> >
>
> We can forward those, if you want. Probably should.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org  - New Energy for Java

Re: GitHub workflows?

[Greg Stein]

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
wrote:
>...

> So, the questions I would ask are, are all those comments making it to the
> list?  And are the podling participants showing through their actions that
> they understand inclusiveness, by ensuring that dev list readers are able
> to
> follow along?
>

Pull requests and issues, and the comments upon them are all delivered to
an archived PMC mailing list. These tend to go to dev@, issues@, or
notifications@ ... as a PMC chooses.

I checked with Legal, and we are required to forward this stuff to a list.


> For what it's worth, on one dev list I'm on, pull requests make it to the
> dev
> list, but commenting on a commit via the Github interface only triggers a
> private notification -- the comment never makes it to our dev list.  We
> mostly
> avoid Github commit comments for that reason, so inclusiveness is not
> harmed
> -- but people new to Apache might not handle things that way.
>

We can forward those, if you want. Probably should.

Cheers,
-g

Re: GitHub workflows?

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
> Thanks Daniel, I should have thought of that, since that is how I noticed
> it.
>
> So, then the question should have been;
>
> Are we ok with podlings using GH "Issues" instead of ASF-hosted issue
> tracker?
>
> Are we ok that discussions happen on pull requests and commits?
>
> I am a little bit uneasy about it, but does the Incubator as a whole have
> an opinion/resolution on it?

This was discussed in .

The main principle to be upheld is that all dev decisions need to be made on
the dev list, for all the reasons that experienced Apache community members
are familiar with.  In addition, when people contribute, their intent to
contribute needs to be captured to an Apache-archived channel.

Serializing changes to an ASF mailing list can suffice for both purposes -- if
done well.

We accept a certain amount of data loss going from an issue tracker to a
mailing list. JIRA's state is not fully reproducible -- if somebody attaches a
file and then deletes it later, that file is likely gone even if there were
notifications sent to a mailing list.  So the same sort of data loss from
Github issues is not a problem either.

However, it's important that the serialization of communiques be both complete
and user-friendly enough that someone on the mailing list can participate
fully.

So, the questions I would ask are, are all those comments making it to the
list?  And are the podling participants showing through their actions that
they understand inclusiveness, by ensuring that dev list readers are able to
follow along?

For what it's worth, on one dev list I'm on, pull requests make it to the dev
list, but commenting on a commit via the Github interface only triggers a
private notification -- the comment never makes it to our dev list.  We mostly
avoid Github commit comments for that reason, so inclusiveness is not harmed
-- but people new to Apache might not handle things that way.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: GitHub workflows?

[Stian Soiland-Reyes]

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:29:54 +0100, "Raphael Bircher" 
 wrote:
> As long as all goes to the list, it's probably ok, but I would prefer ASF  
> Tools over third party tools. Thy are under the Foundation control. Even  
> GH is really strong at the moment, you don't know the future of the tools  
> there. If you use tired party tools it's every time a chance of data loss.

Agreed on not relying too heavily on the third-party tools - we have
seen many of these may gradually degrade/fail or change business models.


Discussions on GH pull requests is common in several projects, which
should then be set up to mirror these to dev@ through the ASF GitHub bot
you are not forced to use GH to contribute and it goes into the list
archive. Pull Request mMerging happens using normal git
commands and pushed back to apache.org's git - GitHub recognizes the
commit (you can also say "This closes #15" in the commit message in case
you don't do a normal merge) .


Using GitHub issues will in theory work the same email wise (as is done
for the Ponymail podling), but it is a bit more tricky because of lack
of admin control for normal committers, e.g. to assign issues or labels.

(As we don't want to give repository git commit directly at GitHub).  

It is possible to work around this with emails to the bot, but it gets
cumbersome. A second option perhaps would be a secondary empty
git repository?


I think generally GitHub Pull Requests is good - it is a very structured way
to converse about a code change that still works well on email, and a
very welcoming way for third-party developers to get started
contributing.

A pull request is also fairly transient/short-lived - it would not
be too big deal if say a year later github.com disappears, as you would
still find a thread per pull request on list.apache.org and the
commits in the git log  - although perhaps not as 
beautiful as the GH rendering :-)


Using GitHub issues is a bit different - as that is part of the planning
and management of the project, which is a (P)PMC matter.

For one you would force the PMC/committers to use a third-party tool;
which some may be reluctant too for personal reasons, or even have
institutional or national firewall issues with.  Secondly keeping track
of what is done or not should remain accessible for longer-term, e.g. to
see what was part of a release a year ago. That's another reason to be
more sceptical about using a third-party issue tracker (without a
contractual binding).


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
The University of Manchester
http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: GitHub workflows?

[Raphael Bircher]

Hi Nicolas, *

Am .03.2017, 05:53 Uhr, schrieb Niclas Hedhman :


Thanks Daniel, I should have thought of that, since that is how I noticed
it.

So, then the question should have been;

Are we ok with podlings using GH "Issues" instead of ASF-hosted issue
tracker?

Are we ok that discussions happen on pull requests and commits?


As long as all goes to the list, it's probably ok, but I would prefer ASF  
Tools over third party tools. Thy are under the Foundation control. Even  
GH is really strong at the moment, you don't know the future of the tools  
there. If you use tired party tools it's every time a chance of data loss.


It's just my human option.

Regards, Raphael

--
My introduction https://youtu.be/Ln4vly5sxYU

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: GitHub workflows?

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Hi Niclas,

let me take the Beam example:

- Issues are on Apache Jira (not GitHub issues)
- We have a pull request. If a discussion happens on the mailing list 
cover than specific to the pull request, then, we start the discussion 
on the mailing list.
- We don't consider pull request comments as discussions, we use dev 
mailing list to larger discussion.


Regards
JB

On 03/06/2017 05:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

Thanks Daniel, I should have thought of that, since that is how I noticed
it.

So, then the question should have been;

Are we ok with podlings using GH "Issues" instead of ASF-hosted issue
tracker?

Are we ok that discussions happen on pull requests and commits?


I am a little bit uneasy about it, but does the Incubator as a whole have
an opinion/resolution on it?


Cheers
Niclas

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:


On 03/06/2017 04:56 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

Everyone,
I need to get an understanding of the use of GitHub workflows on Apache
projects.

In GH, it is possible to comment on commits and pull requests. Are those
captured by infra@ and replicated somewhere, or is this "lost data" (I
suspect) in case GitHub goes out of business?


Pull requests and issues are relayed back to the projects' mailing
list(s) automatically. Check, for instance,
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?iss...@trafficserver.apache.org



Cheers




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org







--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: GitHub workflows?

[Jochen Theodorou]

On 06.03.2017 04:56, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

Everyone,
I need to get an understanding of the use of GitHub workflows on Apache
projects.

In GH, it is possible to comment on commits and pull requests. Are those
captured by infra@ and replicated somewhere, or is this "lost data" (I
suspect) in case GitHub goes out of business?


you can set GH to send the comments messages to dev, then they are not lost

bye Jochen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: GitHub workflows?

[Niclas Hedhman]

Thanks Daniel, I should have thought of that, since that is how I noticed
it.

So, then the question should have been;

Are we ok with podlings using GH "Issues" instead of ASF-hosted issue
tracker?

Are we ok that discussions happen on pull requests and commits?


I am a little bit uneasy about it, but does the Incubator as a whole have
an opinion/resolution on it?


Cheers
Niclas

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 03/06/2017 04:56 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > Everyone,
> > I need to get an understanding of the use of GitHub workflows on Apache
> > projects.
> >
> > In GH, it is possible to comment on commits and pull requests. Are those
> > captured by infra@ and replicated somewhere, or is this "lost data" (I
> > suspect) in case GitHub goes out of business?
>
> Pull requests and issues are relayed back to the projects' mailing
> list(s) automatically. Check, for instance,
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?iss...@trafficserver.apache.org
>
> >
> > Cheers
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org <http://zest.apache.org> - New Energy for Java

Re: GitHub workflows?

[Daniel Gruno]

On 03/06/2017 04:56 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Everyone,
> I need to get an understanding of the use of GitHub workflows on Apache
> projects.
> 
> In GH, it is possible to comment on commits and pull requests. Are those
> captured by infra@ and replicated somewhere, or is this "lost data" (I
> suspect) in case GitHub goes out of business?

Pull requests and issues are relayed back to the projects' mailing
list(s) automatically. Check, for instance,
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?iss...@trafficserver.apache.org

> 
> Cheers
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

GitHub workflows?

[Niclas Hedhman]

Everyone,
I need to get an understanding of the use of GitHub workflows on Apache
projects.

In GH, it is possible to comment on commits and pull requests. Are those
captured by infra@ and replicated somewhere, or is this "lost data" (I
suspect) in case GitHub goes out of business?

Cheers
-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org <http://zest.apache.org> - New Energy for Java