D'oh, forgot to explicitly state that I am +1 one on the github PR proposal :)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the barrier > to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above) > > +1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions. > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: >> > Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration >> that Spark has, formal or otherwise. >> >> If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to >> infra. >> >> > As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any >> control over Cassandra Github mirror. >> > >> > Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the >> erroneously opened PRs ourselves, >> > they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close >> them. That’s really frustrating. >> >> No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This >> is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at. You >> can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks up. >> >> Mark >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > AY >> > >> > On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote: >> > >> > On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of >> creating >> >> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate >> >> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of >> changes >> >> in Jira. >> >> >> >> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a >> github >> >> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making >> github >> >> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way >> >> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not >> sure.) >> >> >> >> Should we revisit our policy here? >> > >> > At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a >> > mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub. >> > >> > Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub >> > config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy >> > held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress. >> > >> > As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend >> > that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project >> > makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be >> > said for other processes as well like Jira config.) >> > >> > It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent >> > to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine. >> > Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they may >> > ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than >> > anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable. >> > >> > My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place >> > than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than >> > technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead. >> > >> > Mark >> > >> >> >> >> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed >> > >> > >> >> >
