+1
Regards,
Tarush
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 1:19 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Agree,
>
> However, I will a formal vote for the records. As soon as the vote passes,
> I
> will proceed with the next steps (with INFRA).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 10/10/2017 12:31 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> > Sou
Agree,
However, I will a formal vote for the records. As soon as the vote passes, I
will proceed with the next steps (with INFRA).
Regards
JB
On 10/10/2017 12:31 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
Sounds like wild agreement - JB will you be the one to proceed with the
process?
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 a
+1
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Kenneth Knowles
wrote:
> Sounds like wild agreement - JB will you be the one to proceed with the
> process?
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Weise wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > It will enable proper work with PRs in the github interface (like
> > requesti
Sounds like wild agreement - JB will you be the one to proceed with the
process?
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Weise wrote:
> +1
>
> It will enable proper work with PRs in the github interface (like
> requesting reviewers, merging and closing inactive PRs, after github and
> ASF IDs are
+1
It will enable proper work with PRs in the github interface (like
requesting reviewers, merging and closing inactive PRs, after github and
ASF IDs are linked)
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Ismaël Mejía wrote:
> +1
>
> On Oct 9, 2017 6:52 PM, "Thomas Groh" wrote:
>
> > +1.
> >
> > I do lo
+1
On Oct 9, 2017 6:52 PM, "Thomas Groh" wrote:
> +1.
>
> I do love myself a forcing function for passing tests.
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > > On 6. Oct 2017, at 18:57, Kenneth Knowles
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds great. If I recall correctly
+1.
I do love myself a forcing function for passing tests.
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> +1
>
> > On 6. Oct 2017, at 18:57, Kenneth Knowles
> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds great. If I recall correctly, it means we could also us
> assignment /
> > review requests to pass pul
+1
> On 6. Oct 2017, at 18:57, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>
> Sounds great. If I recall correctly, it means we could also us assignment /
> review requests to pass pull requests around, instead of "R: foo" comments.
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Tyler Akidau
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri,
Sounds great. If I recall correctly, it means we could also us assignment /
review requests to pass pull requests around, instead of "R: foo" comments.
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Tyler Akidau
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:54 AM Reuven Lax
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Oct 6, 2017
+1
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:54 AM Reuven Lax wrote:
> +1
>
> On Oct 6, 2017 4:51 PM, "Lukasz Cwik" wrote:
>
> > I think its a great idea and find that the mergebot works well on the
> > website.
> > Since gitbox enforces that the precommit checks pass, it would also be a
> > good forcing functi
+1
On Oct 6, 2017 4:51 PM, "Lukasz Cwik" wrote:
> I think its a great idea and find that the mergebot works well on the
> website.
> Since gitbox enforces that the precommit checks pass, it would also be a
> good forcing function for the community to maintain reliably passing tests.
>
> On Fri,
I think its a great idea and find that the mergebot works well on the
website.
Since gitbox enforces that the precommit checks pass, it would also be a
good forcing function for the community to maintain reliably passing tests.
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi guy
Hi guys,
We use Apache gitbox for the website and it works fine (as soon as you linked
your Apache and github with 2FA enabled).
What do you think about moving to gitbox for the codebase itself ?
It could speed up the review and merge for the PRs.
Thoughts ?
Regards
JB
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr
13 matches
Mail list logo
