Since we have people wanting this and need a small experiment group to blaze the trail for us, I think the geode-native would be a good choice since it has active PRs and commits. Looks like the process to migrate from Git@ASF to GitHub is to create an INFRA ticket with type 'Gitbox Request'.
Jake, do you want to file the ticket or I can do it? --Mark On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Well, I am not seeing any -1 votes for this switch. Let's make the change. > > Any takers for following up with Inra to make this go? > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:49 PM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > +1 for Gitbox > > > > This will greatly simplify the workflow committers go through with pull > > requests from the community. It will also allow us to close out pulls > that > > go dark. On our local repos we would really have no need to ever include > > the apache repo so it reduces the number of remotes we need to track. > > > > -Jake > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Aug 7, 2017, at 6:09 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > it has just come to my attention that Gitbox at ASF > > > has been enabling full GitHub workflow (with being > > > able to click Merge this PR button, etc.) for quite > > > some time. > > > > > > This basically allows a project to have GH as a R/W > > > repo as opposed to R/O mirror of what we all currnently > > > have: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf > > > > > > Personally I'm not sure I like GH workflow all that much, > > > but if there's interest -- you can opt-in into Gitbox. Once > > > you do -- your source of truth moves to GH. You can't > > > have it both ways with git-wip-us.apache.org and Gitbox. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Roman. > > >
