Hi - Pulsar has been using this and I am +1.
I do have some community related observations that are worth mentioning. (1) Pulsar is directing all of GitHub activity in both the code repository and the git wiki to the dev list. This content does serve as both the main view to see what is going on from the Apache policy point of view. Decisions are on the dev list. (2) This means the commit activity must be mixed together with discussion. If we move all the git messages to the commits list then we are not meeting the Apache decisions on the Dev list mandate. You could argue that we aren’t quite anyway because the best way to do this is on the GitHub interface. (3) Moving more of the code review commentary into the source code and wiki might actually be a very good thing. It would make the dev mailing list a different place. One that is naturally less intense. Should the Incubator suggest that GitHub alerts be output to the commits or notifications lists only? Should these questions go to comdev? Regards, Dave > On Jul 28, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The service is not in general release, so no: we won't be mass-migrating > projects, and we reserve the right to halt migration requests. > > On Jul 28, 2017 13:30, "Christopher" <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> However, I would personally prefer to see all projects using git-wip >> automatically migrated to GitBox, and have the old host(s) redirect to >> gitbox, so the migration is completely transparent. It doesn't force any >> projects to use GitBox features, but I can't see any downside, and it gives >> everybody the option to use the GitBox features if they choose to, going >> forward. (Migration to GitBox does not automatically enable GitHub issues >> or other GitHub features. It only gives project members write access to >> GitHub repos, and all that entails, and use of all of that is entirely >> optional.) >> >> If the conversion happened this way, it seems like it'd be easier for INFRA >> to do in bulk, rather than convert projects one-by-one. >> >> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:48 AM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> As many are aware, Infra has been rolling out a new service that allows >>> projects to leverage git repositories dually hosted on github and ASF git >>> repositories, commonly known as gitbox. This effectively allows a >> project >>> to commit directly to Github and have those commits reflect back on the >> ASF >>> side. >>> >>> This has been especially useful to a number of projects, since the github >>> interface gives many options for managing repositories. I've recently >> also >>> asked infra to open it up to allow any IPMC member to request a gitbox >>> repository for any approved podling that is using gitbox. Podlings I >> think >>> have found this useful, since many of them come from a github background. >>> They like using the tool and having it available for all to use. >>> >>> So with that said, I want to propose some broad incubator wide policies >> for >>> gitbox. I'd like to propose that gitbox usage is approved for all >>> podlings, there is nothing to inhibit a podling to request a gitbox >>> repository and as long as a podling feels the need to use gitbox, like >> they >>> would any other tool that we can integrate with, they should be free to >> use >>> it without any additional approvals required. >>> >>> So please let me know your thoughts. If I don't hear any -1's I plan to >>> submit an infra ticket early next week to enable the access for all >>> approved podlings. Please note that your first conversion may need some >>> lead time with infra. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> John >>> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
