FWIW, the Apache OpenNLP project recently moved to gitbox and even had a release following that - if anything it makes a committers' PR merge workflow lot easier when having to rebase, squash and merge PRs.
See the section about 'Merging a PR via Github' here - http://opennlp.apache.org/using-git.html On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: > Well then, let's just try it out :) > > I'll push a branch to the apache repo. > > > On 18.07.2017 16:16, Greg Hogan wrote: > >> My understanding was that the synchronization was bidirectional but >> clearly we’re working without documentation. >> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Apache- >> Karaf-Slack-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html < >> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Apache-Karaf- >> Slack-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html> >> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html >> <http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html >> > >> >> >> On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> According to the JIRA you linked, you can push the the apache repo, but >>> it will be overridden by GitHub. >>> (as it should since the GitHub repo is the original) >>> >>> The solution offered in the JIRA is to (force) push to the github repo >>> instead of the apache one. >>> Unless I'm misunderstanding this doesn't appear to change anything. >>> >>> On 18.07.2017 14:37, Greg Hogan wrote: >>> >>>> You are not able to push to the ASF repo? This link implies that both >>>> work (and identify an issue now addressed): >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039 < >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039> >>>> >>>> From my .git/config: >>>> >>>> [remote "origin"] >>>> url = g...@github.com:apache/flink-shaded.git >>>> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* >>>> [remote "apache"] >>>> url = https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git >>>> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/apache/* >>>> [branch "master"] >>>> remote = origin >>>> merge = refs/heads/master >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So committers would still need to link their accounts. >>>>> >>>>> Source for the mirror info: https://issues.apache.org/jira >>>>> /browse/INFRA-13926 >>>>> >>>>> On 18.07.2017 13:50, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Alright, so there is an apache repo that can found at >>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=flink-shaded.git >>>>>> but it is a mirror of the github repo. >>>>>> >>>>>> For flink, we push to apache and it is mirrored to github. >>>>>> For flink-shaded, we push to github and it is mirror to apache. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18.07.2017 13:47, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not aware of any asf hosted repository for gitbox projects; if >>>>>>> you look at the flink-shaded repository you will >>>>>>> not see any mention of it being a mirror, compared to the flink repo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The git-wip-us.apache.org repo for flink-shaded was removed when we >>>>>>> switched. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18.07.2017 13:27, Greg Hogan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Linking is required to commit to the ASF hosted repo as well as the >>>>>>>> GitHub repo? My understanding was that linking and 2FA was only >>>>>>>> required to >>>>>>>> commit through GitHub, so no one would have diminished capabilities. >>>>>>>> I’d >>>>>>>> generally recommend only ever writing to a single repo to prevent >>>>>>>> concurrent commits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We recently moved flink-shaded to GitBox; overall I'm quite happy >>>>>>>>> with how it works. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, it is not possible for committers to push commits that >>>>>>>>> haven't gone through the github/asf >>>>>>>>> account linking process (https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I verified this today in an experiment with the help of Robert. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF >>>>>>>>> github organization, include their github username >>>>>>>>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their >>>>>>>>> github account. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink >>>>>>>>> repository I don't know whether we want to >>>>>>>>> impose these requirements on all committers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that with GitBox project committers who have >>>>>>>>>>> linked >>>>>>>>>>> Apache and GitHub accounts are given organization write >>>>>>>>>>> permissions. Other >>>>>>>>>>> contributors will continue to have read permissions. >>>>>>>>>>> https://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission- >>>>>>>>>>> levels-for-an- >>>>>>>>>>> organization/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the >>>>>>>>>>> use of >>>>>>>>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before >>>>>>>>>>> switching to commit >>>>>>>>>>> into the GitHub repo. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to >>>>>>>>>>> switch and >>>>>>>>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler < >>>>>>>>>>>> ches...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Found some info in this JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/INFRA-14191 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently, Gitbox is still in the beta phase. There are no >>>>>>>>>>>> public docs >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> for it yet. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Committers are required to link their apache & GitHub accounts, >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> requires 2FA on GitHub. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As it stands I would be in favor of Gregs original suggestion of >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more >>>>>>>>>>>> info and it >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> is a bit more proven. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also like to see this happening for both flink-web and >>>>>>>>>>>>> flink >>>>>>>>>>>>> if it allows committers to have control over the respective >>>>>>>>>>>>> repos. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Chesnay Schepler < >>>>>>>>>>>>> ches...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What are the downsides of this? Actually, is there any ASF >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resource >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> outlines what this would enable? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one of the threads i saw said that this would also allow >>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> close PR's, assign labels and such. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds very interesting to me for the main repo actually. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09.06.2017 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert has an open PR from March. I’ve found, for example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PRs adding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> links to talks or slides left open for months. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’d suggest Fluo is to Accumulo as flink-web is to the flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that migration looks to be satisfactory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bq. better track the oft-neglected contributions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have estimate on how many contributions were not paid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention in >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the current infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at #2, it seems Accumulo community hasn't reached >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Greg Hogan < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> c...@greghogan.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accumulo has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oft-neglected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >
