+1 to GitHub PRs, I think it will make things easier. El viernes, 26 de agosto de 2016, Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com> escribió:
> 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 > <javascript:;>> 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 > <javascript:;>> 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 > <javascript:;>) 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > -- Andrés de la Peña Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd <https://twitter.com/StratioBD>*
