Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 for using Gitbox Timo Am 16.05.18 um 17:43 schrieb Kenneth Knowles: Actually, GitHub has a feature so you do not require picture-perfect commits: https://help.github.com/articles/allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork/ If the owner of the PR checks the box, it will gi

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

I couldn't find any such setting in one of my repos :( On 16.05.2018 21:03, Kenneth Knowles wrote: When I open a pull request to Beam, it is on by default. I have just run an experiment to see if it is remembering the last option I checked and it is not. Even after I disable it for one pull requ

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

t enable when creating PR? > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > +1 > > Original message From: Shuyi Chen > > Date: 5/16/18 1:12 PM (GMT-08:00) To: dev@flink.apache.org Subject: > Re: > > [DISCUSS] GitBox > > +1 :) A

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

1:12 PM (GMT-08:00) To: dev@flink.apache.org Subject: Re: > [DISCUSS] GitBox > +1 :) A lot of projects <https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf> are already > using it. > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:40 AM, Chesnay Schepler > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > during

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 Original message From: Shuyi Chen Date: 5/16/18 1:12 PM (GMT-08:00) To: dev@flink.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox +1 :) A lot of projects <https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf> are already using it. On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:40 AM, Chesnay Schepler

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 :) A lot of projects are already using it. On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:40 AM, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > Hello, > > during the discussion about how to better manage pull requests [1] the > topic of GitBox integration came up again. > > This seems like a good

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 Kenneth Knowles schrieb am Mi., 16. Mai 2018, 21:04: > When I open a pull request to Beam, it is on by default. I have just run an > experiment to see if it is remembering the last option I checked and it is > not. Even after I disable it for one pull request, the next one has it > checked ag

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

When I open a pull request to Beam, it is on by default. I have just run an experiment to see if it is remembering the last option I checked and it is not. Even after I disable it for one pull request, the next one has it checked again. So it may be a repository-level setting that you can set up.

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

This however has to be enabled by the contributor, separately for each PR. We'll see how often we get the opportunity to use it. On 16.05.2018 17:43, Kenneth Knowles wrote: Actually, GitHub has a feature so you do not require picture-perfect commits: https://help.github.com/articles/allowing-cha

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Thomas Weise wrote: > +1 > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Stefan Richter < > s.rich...@data-artisans.com > > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > Am 16.05.2018 um 12:40 schrieb Chesnay Schepler : > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > during the discussion about how to bet

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 Regards JB Le 16 mai 2018 à 20:09, à 20:09, Thomas Weise a écrit: >+1 > > >On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Stefan Richter >> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> > Am 16.05.2018 um 12:40 schrieb Chesnay Schepler >: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > during the discussion about how to better manage pull requests [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Stefan Richter wrote: > +1 > > > Am 16.05.2018 um 12:40 schrieb Chesnay Schepler : > > > > Hello, > > > > during the discussion about how to better manage pull requests [1] the > topic of GitBox integration came up again. > > > > This seems like a good opport

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Actually, GitHub has a feature so you do not require picture-perfect commits: https://help.github.com/articles/allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork/ If the owner of the PR checks the box, it will give committers write access to their branch (on their fork). A nice bonus is

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 > Am 16.05.2018 um 12:40 schrieb Chesnay Schepler : > > Hello, > > during the discussion about how to better manage pull requests [1] the topic > of GitBox integration came up again. > > This seems like a good opportunity to restart this discussion that we had > about a year ago [2]. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 > On 16 May 2018, at 14:24, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > +1 > > On Beam, we gradually enabled this, first for the website repo and then for > the main repo and we didn't run into problems. > >> On 16. May 2018, at 12:45, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >> >> Forget an important feature: It would

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 On Beam, we gradually enabled this, first for the website repo and then for the main repo and we didn't run into problems. > On 16. May 2018, at 12:45, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > Forget an important feature: It would allow committers to close pull requests. > > On 16.05.2018 12:40, Chesna

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Forget an important feature: It would allow committers to close pull requests. On 16.05.2018 12:40, Chesnay Schepler wrote: Hello, during the discussion about how to better manage pull requests [1] the topic of GitBox integration came up again. This seems like a good opportunity to restart

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

It appears the mirroring is bi-directional. Here's the output i got while pushing /remote: Sending notification emails to: ['"comm...@flink.apache.org" '] remote: To git@github:apache/flink-shaded.git remote:fd3033b..301c6bb 301c6bbc5e87c44eac48d43e3b9ce44f3b54b3eb -> test_bra

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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 From my .git/config: [remote "origin"] url = g...@github.com:apache/f

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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 i

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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, Che

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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 Hog

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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 co

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

+1 for trying out Gitbox! On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan 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://h

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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 c

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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 wrote: > What are the downsides of this? Actually, is there any ASF resource that > outlines what this would en

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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 wrote: > > bq. better tra

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

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 wrote: > All, > > A