From general-return-50191-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Jul 14 13:31:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A6CB717CEE for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 98939 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jul 2015 13:31:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 98752 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jul 2015 13:31:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 98740 invoked by uid 99); 14 Jul 2015 13:31:34 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:31:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 48354C0098 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:31:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.751 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.751 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ=0.75, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ygr0qGTkI2SX for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yk0-f179.google.com (mail-yk0-f179.google.com [209.85.160.179]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 89F492092B for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ykdu72 with SMTP id u72so7698224ykd.2 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 06:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=z0+IEnRdgje4F3WdCE3/wk71a04X2pAyYV50meXSUd8=; b=RlBENPKrDmonTfj/w9SAevgM7RD2dPz4wxgdnUkWhLP9GBHCWtWGeiq6M436OgZRBm 28h5W/i9EffG8WFqs46/uc1n3ud+KuNEjeykwKsqHlW+AriDSTGU35m05TyEgAil/Tza CWlgQ9tvHEDLd9uyUM8RTilKKNU+/XOecgW46mhj15LuQFtLqNrzJFLQgKs5J/lLC2z8 pQTMJmIhhz8kTZ8BxvS/y6SaxrUZajMPHsrNXlPu4abbwgJKMe0PPDH3XqPvB0Qx/5jU F/qUrXMMeanAcQHMQblZLXOQapWD6xXOPrZwXzIs63ya/4cKm03bZkimMx0bH/xDvhWo rVYw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl9xWIZy0NdjbUnQzF9ecVsFJUiqDa0z/z4enzQKXo2j/90JN8f+OjRmPsImKFkzYE3+8Wq X-Received: by 10.170.43.193 with SMTP id 184mr44021703ykl.119.1436880680665; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 06:31:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.35.78 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 06:31:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: David Nalley Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:31:01 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Podling request: Gerrit To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Ian Maxon wrote: >> This is pretty far from what the norm is, and is being proposed by a >> podling, so I'd expect some skepticism. Other podlings, have proposed >> similar workflows (albeit with extra problems.) and were not allowed >> to retain that procedure. > > I think there's some confusion here about what the workflow exactly is > at the moment. ASF git is the source of truth here, and nothing goes > into it without a committer putting it there by hand. That's good. > We use Gerrit as > a tool to do code reviews and to organize the commits, as well as to > facilitate easy testing. However that's all it's used for- we still > clone from repositories that come downstream from ASF, not the other > way around. I'd be interested to understand how this would be > considered any different than what is done with Github Pull Requests. > So GH PR have a subtle distinction (at least in the way that they are handled at the ASF). Projects can't merge pull requests into the repo at github. Non-committers see a workflow that is the Github workflow, because that's very familiar, and lowers the barrier to contribution. Committers, however, have a very different workflow than the folks who typically review and close pull requests on github. They have to take the patch [1], and merge it into the canonical repository at the ASF, which then appears in the github repository because of the mirror process. This stops the problem of diverging codebases that you are currently experiencing, calls to rewrite history to align the ASF repo with the external repo, etc. There are some other problems, that aren't necessarily as worrisome, but should be something to consider. First, you're relying on a third party to provide that resource. That's not inherently a problem, but we have a number of examples of projects using external tools and those being shut down or phased out which causes tremendous disruption to projects. It's also at the old project's home, which might cause some folks to question whether the project is truly independent, or not. --David [1] https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/apache/airavata/pull/18.patch --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org