Ok, nice to see we have in the open what possible problems are. That said
and as we are, my experience as RM leads me to say we should move sooner
rather then later. explenation of my not always 100% clear communication
methods: :+1:!!!
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11-01-16 10:56, sebgoa wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rene Moser wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sebastien
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
Part 3:
To me the main issue for
On 11-01-16 10:56, sebgoa wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rene Moser wrote:
>
>> Hi Sebastien
>>
>> On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>> Part 3:
>>>
>>>
>>> To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub
>>> prevent us from building more pr
On 01/11/2016 10:56 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> this is exactly what "moving to github" would mean.
> if we agree to do this, we then need to work with infra and the board to make
> sure everything is ok in terms of provenance and that it does not "break" our
> ASF "commitment"
I see. Thanks for info.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rene Moser wrote:
> Hi Sebastien
>
> On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>> Part 3:
>>
>>
>> To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub prevent
>> us from building more productive CI workflow and makes the life of the
Hi Sebastien
On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Part 3:
>
>
> To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub prevent
> us from building more productive CI workflow and makes the life of the RM
> more difficult (cannot use labels, cannot use issues, ca
> On Jan 10, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
> people, what we are saying by moving to github, completely is that, for
> now, we will be moving away from apache. Apache can not take responsibility
> for any code that is not under it's control.
Daan, thanks for jumping right in.
Part
people, what we are saying by moving to github, completely is that, for
now, we will be moving away from apache. Apache can not take responsibility
for any code that is not under it's control. This is fine, but to satisfy
the foundation policy, maintaining an *Apache* CloudStack we would have to
ha
+1 to moving to github.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:17 PM, ilya wrote:
> +1 to moving to github.
>
> On 1/3/16 3:25 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> > Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger
> consensus.
> >
> > We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
> >
> >
+1 to moving to github.
On 1/3/16 3:25 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger
> consensus.
>
> We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
>
> Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to its
> fu
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:35 AM, John Burwell
wrote:
> All,
> [snip]
> 2. Attachments: A vital part of resolving issues are screenshots and logs.
> While people can gist or imgur this information, it is cumbersome. Many of
> these systems also purge information after some period of time — removing
All,
I am +1 to make Github the “repo of record” for the record. I believe it has
been suggested to keep a secondary, read-only mirror of the repo on ASF which
seems like a prudent, low effort backup.
Personally, I think both Confluence and Github are fairly poor wiki
implementations. Therefor
> On Jan 3, 2016, at 4:28 PM, humbed...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2016-01-03 12:25, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>> Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger
>> consensus.
>>
>> We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
>>
>> Note that this is not about
On 2016-01-03 12:25, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger
> consensus.
>
> We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
>
> Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to its
> full potential.
>
>
Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger consensus.
We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to its
full potential.
The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and st
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache organisation
> right? one that we can not merge to.
>
Yes , that’s how I created all the docs repo and the repos for ec2stack and
gstack.
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM,
Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache organisation
right? one that we can not merge to.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen
wrote:
> BTW
>
> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github at:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk
BTW
Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github at:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8
Not sure if the link will work, but it’s available through issues.
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 19 Dec 201
Hi Rene,
We’re at the stage that running the integration tests is a one-liner and 7 hour
wait [1]. It’s running a subset [2] of available Marvin tests.
The problem is that Marvin is slow and sometimes flaky (error found, rerun is
fine). So the test results need manual review before you can publ
On 12/19/2015 07:57 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
> I disagree with testing based on complexity. You simply cannot know the
> implications upfront, as that is why you run the tests. What seems small, can
> break it all.
>
> Example:
> This commit seems an easy_fix, right? Just a findbugs issue reso
+1 If moving to Github means we can use all features without restrictions:
labels, issues, editing and merging PRs, wiki, integrations, hooks etc etc.
@René,
I disagree with testing based on complexity. You simply cannot know the
implications upfront, as that is why you run the tests. What seem
> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser wrote:
>
> Hi Seb
>
>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
>>
>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, I would
>> like to re-open this discussion.
>>
>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 a
Hi Seb
On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, I would
> like to re-open this discussion.
>
> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and 4.7.0
> we need to think about the next steps.
>
> To me Git
+1 to that, as long as we keep stuff properly mirrored in ASF and so on.
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "sebgoa"
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, 19 December, 2015 09:12:14
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Move to
On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Apologies for a week end email couple days before christmas, but this needs
> to get out.
>
> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, I would
> like to re-open this discussion.
>
> Now that we have stabilized ma
Nux!
> www.nux.ro
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Wido den Hollander"
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, 26 October, 2015 09:59:18
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub
>
> > On 25-10-15 10:52, Milamber wrote:
>
+1 what Wido said.
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Wido den Hollander"
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, 26 October, 2015 09:59:18
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub
> On
Hi
On 10/26/2015 10:59 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>> But, I thinks that would be better to keep the control of the source
>> code repo. This is the core of your work.
>>
>
> Agree. I love Github and it works great, but make it THE primary source
> for the source code and go away from ASF? Well
I like the idea. Few issues I can think of;
- Project will become dependent on Github (but luckily, there is a migration
path from Github to Gitlab, in case anything goes wrong in future)
- Github issues and wiki are quite limited, compared to JIRA and confluence
- Possible split brain issues, wh
On 25-10-15 10:52, Milamber wrote:
>
>
> On 25/10/2015 07:05, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> We have been using GitHub for PR now for a while, it seems to work
>> despite the fact that we still have to get used to the workflow.
>> We lack some privileges on the mirror to be able to u
On 25/10/2015 07:05, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
Folks,
We have been using GitHub for PR now for a while, it seems to work despite the
fact that we still have to get used to the workflow.
We lack some privileges on the mirror to be able to use labels etc.
I would also be in favor of using Issu
+1 !
This would be a HUGE time saver from a RM perspective.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 25 Oct 2015, at 08:05, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> We have been using GitHub for PR now for a while, it seems to work despite
> the fact that we still have to get used to the workflow.
> We lac
32 matches
Mail list logo
