Understood. To be clear, I was merely stating a wish for how a migration might work, because I think GitBox is great and would like to see as many people have it as an option as possible. My wish is not a statement about what infra currently is willing or capable of doing.
I'm sensitive to infra's support resource limitations, and the reason I think this might be worth infra's serious consideration is because it seems possible that a behind-the-scenes migration, like what I suggested, to the superior GitBox service, might be easier to accomplish than infra handling a large number of individual migration requests. If supporting the legacy git-wip in addition to GitBox, as well as handling individual migration requests, is a better use of resources, then so be it. I have no insight into which is better. I suggest it only for consideration by those who have more insight than me. :) On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 5:45 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 > > > > > >
