On 17 October 2014 21:16, Hank Grabowski <h...@applieddefense.com> wrote: > The nice thing about Github, from my perspective as a person with only > read-only access to the ASF repositories, is that it provides me with the > ability to work in my own fork and then initiate pull requests that can be > incorporated into the root repository. I think it is still ideal that the > GitHub repository be synchronized with the ASF git repository and that the > ASF git repository be considered the "gold" copy of all things Apache. The > good news is that because this is git and not SVN, all changes from across > all the users in both GitHub land and direct ASF contributors will always > exist in everyone's repository, because of the nature of how git keeps > track of changes. We essentially all have a full copy of the repository > that can be used as a master to clone from if it ever came to it. >
I was referring to the use of Github for discussing issues. AFAIK, issues are not tracked in the repository. So if Github disappears, would it still be possible to reconstruct the discussions? > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 17 October 2014 19:49, Ole Ersoy <ole.er...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm following the discussion of how MATH-1138 was handled (Which I enjoy >> > reading because I'm very impressed with how eloquently everyone >> communicates >> > their points of view). >> > >> > Just a warning that I might be ignoring [2] (Stolen from Gilles), >> because I >> > have suggested this before: >> > ================================== >> > Keep discussions in Github issues >> > ================================== >> > >> > This would have the following benefits: >> > - All Github users can follow the project just by clicking "Watch" >> (Which is >> > what a lot of developers (World outside of Apache) are becoming >> accustomed >> > to, and they might be confused by the fact that this is not the workflow) >> > - The mailing list could watch the Github issue so that trivial >> discussions >> > could be kept on the list, and the really important points / final >> decisions >> > summarized in the issue. >> > - It makes it easy to lookup workflow history. All the information / >> > history is bound to the issue (Design, debate, links to pull requests, >> > etc.). >> > - It eliminates missed communication. >> > - The commons math communication would be automatically filtered >> (Currently >> > it's bundled with all Commons communication) >> > - You can have it all: >> > https://github.com/joeyh/github-backup >> > >> > Even though the agreed upon protocol right now is to discuss everything >> on >> > the mailing list, in practice it's both the mailing list and issues, and >> > this is causing the type of extra work effort we are seeing with respect >> to >> > MATH-1138, in addition to every now and then individuals have to be >> reminded >> > to move discussion from JIRA to the list. >> >> A major disadvantage is that Github is external. >> It may not last as long as the ASF. >> If it disappears or moves, all the history is potentially lost. >> >> > [2] This is already after the self-censorship filter, on issues >> > where I know in advance that challenging the adopted view will >> > either be ignored or go nowhere... :-} >> > >> > Cheers, >> > - Ole >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
