On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> I dont know about the other pmc members and committers but I prefer just
> making Gerrit the only way to submit patches rather than one of many. It
> seems to work well for Asterix and Kudu.
>
I'd say go for it. Can always undo if it proves too high a bar for new
contributors to get over.
St.Ack
> On Apr 25, 2016 12:16 PM, "Todd Lipcon" wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Wes McKinney wrote:
> >
> > > hi Todd,
> > >
> > > This is helpful to know, thank you. As you say, by "optional" what I
> > > meant was that code could be optionally reviewed in Gerrit, but then
> > > commits would have to be cherry-picked by the committer from the
> > > Gerrit git remote. We would continue to accept patches via GitHub pull
> > > requests (but for larger patches, they may move from GitHub to gerrit
> > > as need be). Unless there is some pitfall here that I'm missing.
> > >
> >
> > The pitfall is what the state of the gerrit remote looks like. How do you
> > keep it up to date with the ASF repo, if you have patches entering the
> ASF
> > repo from some mechanism other than gerrit?
> >
> > It might be possible involving some cron job which force pushes from ASF
> ->
> > Gerrit, but I haven't ever tried a workflow like that.
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Todd Lipcon
> wrote:
> > > > Using gerrit as an "optional" tool is a bit difficult, because it
> > doesn't
> > > > know how to handle commits to a repository that it doesn't own.
> > > >
> > > > The way we get around the "commit via gerrit" issue in the Kudu
> podling
> > > is
> > > > to follow the example of AsterixDB. Commits are made using gerrit,
> but
> > > that
> > > > doesn't automatically flow to the ASF repo. The committer then runs a
> > > > 'push-to-asf.py' script which grabs the commit from gerrit and pushes
> > to
> > > > the ASF repository:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kudu/blob/master/build-support/push_to_asf.py
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy to set up the gerrit projects, but not sure how it would
> work
> > > in
> > > > an "optional" context.
> > > >
> > > > -Todd
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Julian Hyde >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> IIRC Apex wanted to commit via Gerrit. That was a non-starter.
> Commits
> > > >> have to be made by a committer.
> > > >>
> > > >> Julian
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Apr 24, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Wes McKinney
> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sending all Gerrit review activity to the mailing list seems
> > adequate
> > > to
> > > >> me.
> > > >> > I don't see how this is especially different from reviewing code
> on
> > a
> > > >> > website owned by GitHub. I remain hopeful that ASF Infra will set
> up
> > > an
> > > >> > ASF-managed Gerrit.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sunday, April 24, 2016, Ted Dunning
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Just for the record, Apex had some issues getting Gerrit reviews
> > > >> reflected
> > > >> >> in a coherent fashion into the Apache record. I presume that you
> > guys
> > > >> will
> > > >> >> have that handled or will check with the Apex devs to learn their
> > > >> >> resolution.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Todd Lipcon
> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>
