[DISCUSS] GitBox

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] GitBox

Greg Hogan
All,

ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or repos)
GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub functionality by
contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise requiring
INFRA tickets.

I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub issues,
and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after migrating
Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
contributions and also test the waters for future migrations (perhaps for
the future sub-projects).

[0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
[1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
[2]
http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-tp21160p21497.html

Greg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Ted Yu
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All,
>
> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or repos)
> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub functionality by
> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise requiring
> INFRA tickets.
>
> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub issues,
> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after migrating
> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations (perhaps for
> the future sub-projects).
>
> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
> [2]
> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>
> Greg
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Greg Hogan
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or repos)
>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub functionality by
>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise requiring
>> INFRA tickets.
>>
>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub issues,
>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after migrating
>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations (perhaps for
>> the future sub-projects).
>>
>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>> [2]
>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>
>> Greg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Chesnay Schepler-3
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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or repos)
>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub functionality by
>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise requiring
>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub issues,
>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after migrating
>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations (perhaps for
>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>
>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>> [2]
>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>
>>> Greg


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Ufuk Celebi-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>
>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or repos)
>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub functionality
>>>> by
>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>> requiring
>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub issues,
>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>> migrating
>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations (perhaps
>>>> for
>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>> [2]
>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Chesnay Schepler-3
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 of Gregs original suggestion of
activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it
is a bit more proven.

On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or repos)
>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub functionality
>>>>> by
>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>> requiring
>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub issues,
>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>> migrating
>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations (perhaps
>>>>> for
>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>
>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Greg Hogan
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 comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit into the GitHub repo.

If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and use with the nascent flink-libraries.


> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it is a bit more proven.
>
> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or repos)
>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub functionality
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub issues,
>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations (perhaps
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Robert Metzger
+1 for trying out Gitbox!

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an-
> organization/
>
> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of
> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit
> into the GitHub repo.
>
> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and
> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
> > I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it
> is a bit more proven.
> >
> > On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
> >> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
> >>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
> repos)
> >>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
> >>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
> functionality
> >>>>>> by
> >>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
> >>>>>> requiring
> >>>>>> INFRA tickets.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub
> issues,
> >>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
> >>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
> >>>>>> migrating
> >>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
> >>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
> (perhaps
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> the future sub-projects).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
> >>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
> >>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Greg
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Chesnay Schepler-3
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 help of Robert.

The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF github
organization, include their github username
in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their github
account.

While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink
repository I don't know whether we want to
impose these requirements on all committers.

On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:

> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an-
>> organization/
>>
>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of
>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit
>> into the GitHub repo.
>>
>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and
>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it
>> is a bit more proven.
>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
>> repos)
>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>> functionality
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub
>> issues,
>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Greg Hogan
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 commits.


> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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 help of Robert.
>
> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF github organization, include their github username
> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their github account.
>
> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink repository I don't know whether we want to
> impose these requirements on all committers.
>
> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an-
>>> organization/
>>>
>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of
>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit
>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>
>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and
>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it
>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub
>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Chesnay Schepler-3
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 Hogan wrote:

> 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 commits.
>
>
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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 help of Robert.
>>
>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF github organization, include their github username
>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their github account.
>>
>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink repository I don't know whether we want to
>> impose these requirements on all committers.
>>
>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an-
>>>> organization/
>>>>
>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of
>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit
>>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and
>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it
>>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
>>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub
>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Chesnay Schepler-3
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, Chesnay Schepler wrote:

> 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 Hogan wrote:
>> 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 commits.
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 help of Robert.
>>>
>>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF github
>>> organization, include their github username
>>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their
>>> github account.
>>>
>>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink
>>> repository I don't know whether we want to
>>> impose these requirements on all committers.
>>>
>>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an-
>>>>> organization/
>>>>>
>>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the
>>>>> use of
>>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching
>>>>> to commit
>>>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to
>>>>> switch and
>>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info
>>>>>> and it
>>>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
>>>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and
>>>>>>>>>>> links
>>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using
>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub
>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache
>>>>>>>>>>> Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the
>>>>>>>>>>> oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Chesnay Schepler-3
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 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, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
>> 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 Hogan wrote:
>>> 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 commits.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 help of Robert.
>>>>
>>>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF github
>>>> organization, include their github username
>>>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their
>>>> github account.
>>>>
>>>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink
>>>> repository I don't know whether we want to
>>>> impose these requirements on all committers.
>>>>
>>>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>>>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]>
>>>>> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> organization/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the
>>>>>> use of
>>>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching
>>>>>> to commit
>>>>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to
>>>>>> switch and
>>>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info
>>>>>>> and it
>>>>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
>>>>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and
>>>>>>>>>>>> links
>>>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks
>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using
>>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub
>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>> Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the
>>>>>>>>>>>> oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>
>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Greg Hogan
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 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039>

From my .git/config:

[remote "origin"]
        url = [hidden email]:apache/flink-shaded.git
        fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
[remote "apache"]
        url = https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git
        fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/apache/*
[branch "master"]
        remote = origin
        merge = refs/heads/master


> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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 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, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
>>> 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 Hogan wrote:
>>>> 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 commits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 help of Robert.
>>>>>
>>>>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF github organization, include their github username
>>>>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their github account.
>>>>>
>>>>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink repository I don't know whether we want to
>>>>> impose these requirements on all committers.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>>>>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an- 
>>>>>>> organization/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of
>>>>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit
>>>>>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and
>>>>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>>>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it
>>>>>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
>>>>>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub
>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Chesnay Schepler-3
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't appear to change anything.

On 18.07.2017 14:37, Greg Hogan wrote:

> 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 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039>
>
>  From my .git/config:
>
> [remote "origin"]
> url = [hidden email]:apache/flink-shaded.git
> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
> [remote "apache"]
> url = https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git
> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/apache/*
> [branch "master"]
> remote = origin
> merge = refs/heads/master
>
>
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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 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, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
>>>> 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 Hogan wrote:
>>>>> 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 commits.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 help of Robert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF github organization, include their github username
>>>>>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their github account.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink repository I don't know whether we want to
>>>>>> impose these requirements on all committers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>>>>>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an-
>>>>>>>> organization/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of
>>>>>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit
>>>>>>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and
>>>>>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>>>>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>>>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it
>>>>>>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>>>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
>>>>>>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub
>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
>>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Greg Hogan
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 <http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Apache-Karaf-Slack-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html>    http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html <http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html>


> On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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't appear to change anything.
>
> On 18.07.2017 14:37, Greg Hogan wrote:
>> 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 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039>
>>
>> From my .git/config:
>>
>> [remote "origin"]
>> url = [hidden email]:apache/flink-shaded.git
>> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
>> [remote "apache"]
>> url = https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git
>> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/apache/*
>> [branch "master"]
>> remote = origin
>> merge = refs/heads/master
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 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, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
>>>>> 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 Hogan wrote:
>>>>>> 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 commits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 help of Robert.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF github organization, include their github username
>>>>>>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their github account.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink repository I don't know whether we want to
>>>>>>> impose these requirements on all committers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>>>>>>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an-
>>>>>>>>> organization/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of
>>>>>>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit
>>>>>>>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and
>>>>>>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>>>>>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>>>>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it
>>>>>>>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>>>>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
>>>>>>>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub
>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
>>>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Chesnay Schepler-3
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-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html <http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Apache-Karaf-Slack-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html>    http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html <http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html>
>
>
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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't appear to change anything.
>>
>> On 18.07.2017 14:37, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>> 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 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039>
>>>
>>>  From my .git/config:
>>>
>>> [remote "origin"]
>>> url = [hidden email]:apache/flink-shaded.git
>>> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
>>> [remote "apache"]
>>> url = https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git
>>> fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/apache/*
>>> [branch "master"]
>>> remote = origin
>>> merge = refs/heads/master
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 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, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
>>>>>> 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 Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>> 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 commits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 help of Robert.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF github organization, include their github username
>>>>>>>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their github account.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink repository I don't know whether we want to
>>>>>>>> impose these requirements on all committers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-levels-for-an-
>>>>>>>>>> organization/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the use of
>>>>>>>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before switching to commit
>>>>>>>>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to switch and
>>>>>>>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>>>>>>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>>>>>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more info and it
>>>>>>>>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new projects or
>>>>>>>>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using GitHub
>>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future migrations
>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Suneel Marthi-2
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.html




On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html <
>> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Apache-Karaf-
>> Slack-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html>
>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html
>> <http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html
>> >
>>
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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't appear to change anything.
>>>
>>> On 18.07.2017 14:37, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 <
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039>
>>>>
>>>>  From my .git/config:
>>>>
>>>> [remote "origin"]
>>>>         url = [hidden email]:apache/flink-shaded.git
>>>>         fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
>>>> [remote "apache"]
>>>>         url = https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git
>>>>         fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/apache/*
>>>> [branch "master"]
>>>>         remote = origin
>>>>         merge = refs/heads/master
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 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, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 commits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 help of Robert.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF
>>>>>>>>> github organization, include their github username
>>>>>>>>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their
>>>>>>>>> github account.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink
>>>>>>>>> repository I don't know whether we want to
>>>>>>>>> impose these requirements on all committers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-
>>>>>>>>>>> levels-for-an-
>>>>>>>>>>> organization/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the
>>>>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before
>>>>>>>>>>> switching to commit
>>>>>>>>>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to
>>>>>>>>>>> switch and
>>>>>>>>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more
>>>>>>>>>>>> info and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Chesnay Schepler-3
It appears the mirroring is bi-directional.

Here's the output i got while pushing

    /remote: Sending notification emails to:
    ['"[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>']
    remote: To git@github:apache/flink-shaded.git
    remote:    fd3033b..301c6bb 301c6bbc5e87c44eac48d43e3b9ce44f3b54b3eb
    -> test_branch
    remote: Syncing refs/heads/test_branch...
    To https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git
        fd3033b..301c6bb  master -> test_branch
    /

What remains to be seen is what happens if the 2 repos are out of sync,
for example due to a concurrent
push to both apache and github. I don't have the time today to try this
out though.

On 18.07.2017 16:48, Suneel Marthi wrote:

> 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.html
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html <
>>> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Apache-Karaf-
>>> Slack-amp-discuss-about-GitBox-td4050669.html>
>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html
>>> <http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td21160.html
>>>
>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> 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't appear to change anything.
>>>>
>>>> On 18.07.2017 14:37, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14039>
>>>>>
>>>>>   From my .git/config:
>>>>>
>>>>> [remote "origin"]
>>>>>          url = [hidden email]:apache/flink-shaded.git
>>>>>          fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
>>>>> [remote "apache"]
>>>>>          url = https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink-shaded.git
>>>>>          fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/apache/*
>>>>> [branch "master"]
>>>>>          remote = origin
>>>>>          merge = refs/heads/master
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 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, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 commits.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 help of Robert.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The linking process requires every committer to join the ASF
>>>>>>>>>> github organization, include their github username
>>>>>>>>>> in the apache profile, and setup 2-factor-authorization for their
>>>>>>>>>> github account.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While i would love to have the gitbox functionality for the Flink
>>>>>>>>>> repository I don't know whether we want to
>>>>>>>>>> impose these requirements on all committers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 21.06.2017 19:49, Robert Metzger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for trying out Gitbox!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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://help.github.com/articles/repository-permission-
>>>>>>>>>>>> levels-for-an-
>>>>>>>>>>>> organization/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The last comment noting the “split-brain” shouldn’t preclude the
>>>>>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox but we should come to a general consensus before
>>>>>>>>>>>> switching to commit
>>>>>>>>>>>> into the GitHub repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we want to try GitHub for flink-web, a second step could to
>>>>>>>>>>>> switch and
>>>>>>>>>>>> use with the nascent flink-libraries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 6:50 AM, Chesnay Schepler <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 of Gregs original suggestion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> activating it for flink-web as a test bed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would wait with the main repo until we actually have more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> info and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a bit more proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11.06.2017 19:37, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 17:41, Greg Hogan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF now has available (and maybe mandatory for new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox [0] which enables bi-directional sync to GitHub and links
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers' accounts, allowing for greater use of GitHub
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributors and for committers to perform many tasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requiring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose moving flink-web [1] to GitBox, using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and enabling notifications to the mailing lists. Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accumulo has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently discussed [2] this topic with a list of benefits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fluo. By migrating flink-web we can better track the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oft-neglected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and also test the waters for future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the future sub-projects).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://gitbox.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitBox-tp21160p21497.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>