On 14 Jul 2015, at 15:31, David Nalley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Ian Maxon <ima...@uci.edu> wrote:
We use Gerrit as
a tool to do code reviews and to organize the commits, as well as to
facilitate easy testing. However that's all it's used for- we still
clone from repositories that come downstream from ASF, not the other
way around. I'd be interested to understand how this would be
considered any different than what is done with Github Pull Requests.
So GH PR have a subtle distinction (at least in the way that they are
handled at the ASF). Projects can't merge pull requests into the repo
at github. Non-committers see a workflow that is the Github workflow,
because that's very familiar, and lowers the barrier to contribution.
Committers, however, have a very different workflow than the folks who
typically review and close pull requests on github. They have to take
the patch [1], and merge it into the canonical repository at the ASF,
which then appears in the github repository because of the mirror
process. This stops the problem of diverging codebases that you are
currently experiencing, calls to rewrite history to align the ASF repo
with the external repo, etc.
As Ian indicated AsterixDB's process also requires manual interaction of
a committer. The current steps are now documented on the website [2].
There are some other problems, that aren't necessarily as worrisome,
but should be something to consider. First, you're relying on a third
party to provide that resource. That's not inherently a problem, but
we have a number of examples of projects using external tools and
those being shut down or phased out which causes tremendous disruption
to projects. It's also at the old project's home, which might cause
some folks to question whether the project is truly independent, or
not.
In my view Gerrit is "just" a tool that the AsterixDB community chose
to keep when starting the incubation process. It is is non-essential and
has been used by developers from different organizations before the
incubation started. But I think that its use was and is very beneficial
to the project.
When we started incubation it seemed to us, that keeping the existing
tool would be a good idea as it
a) allows for a smoother transition and
b) would not put additional requirements on the ASF infrastructure.
However, I do agree that a shut down of the service (which seems very
unlikely at the current point in time) could be a disruption to the
project. So it might be better to run this tool on the ASF
infrastructure.
Should we pursue this?
Or is it acceptable to keep the tool on external hardware for now?
Or do you see fundamental issues with AsterixDB's use of Gerrit?
Thanks,
Till
[1]
https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/apache/airavata/pull/18.patch
[2] https://asterixdb.incubator.apache.org/pushing.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
