Re: [jetty-dev] [jetty-users] Github Hosting of Jetty

[Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

For fun I'll add this pdf of the Eclipse process so that people can
see in a more illustrated fashion what we are talking about:
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf

Note: We are starting at Figure 3.
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx


On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All,
>
> I've been responsible for moving Jetty from SCCS to RCS, RCS to CVS, CVS to
> SVN and finally SVN to GIT, while along the way migrating from mortbay to
> sourceforge, sourceforge to codehaus, codehaus to eclipse.
>
> Experience from those moves suggests to me that moving can cause more
> disruption than the benefits that it gains.
>
> I'm very content with the project being developed under the Eclipse
> Foundation, it has provided an umbrella organisation that has not been too
> intrusive in the technical development of the project, has imposed some
> reasonable IP due diligence and provides hosting resources that while not
> start of the art are capable, maintained and not far from the state of the
> art.
>
> So I've got zero interest in moving the project away from the eclipse
> foundation from an organisational point of view.
>
>
> I am however keen to accept contributions in whatever form they are given
> and github pull requests are a popular way to make contributions, and are
> well supported with collaborative tools.      The project has already
> received 21 pull request on the github mirror and another 5 on a fork of the
> mirror.
>
> In the past, we have simply rejected these PRs with a message asking for
> patch contribution.   However, it is already possible for us to directly
> pull from these pull requests, so long as the contributor has signed an
> eclipse CLA and referred to the PR in a bugzilla.  So going forward, I
> suggest that at the minimum we respond to PRs with a request for a CLA and
> bugzilla, rather than asking for the contribution to be reformed.
>
> So my question is, will moving the canonical repository to github make this
> process any easier?    Maybe a little bit, but not so as the contributor
> will notice.   They will still need to sign a CLA and open a bugzilla.
> The difference is that the committer processing the PR will be able to click
> a button to get the merge rather than use command line git commands.
>
>
> I think that we should look at this in stages.   The first stage is to get
> some more control over the PRs that are raised for the current github
> mirror.  We should be able to put suitable CONTRIBUTING file in place that
> describes the CLA and bugzilla requirements.  We should be able to
> open/close the PRs as well as comment on them.
>
> I think we can then operate in that mode for a while and get some actual PRs
> that we can process.  The contributor should not see any difference in the
> process.   Once we have experience with that path and the processing of PRs,
> then we can consider if it is worthwhile moving the canonical repository to
> make the commiters task a little bit easier.
>
> cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12 September 2014 01:52, Tamás Cservenák <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Jesse McConnell
>> <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://wiki.eclipse.org/Social_Coding/Hosting_a_Project_at_GitHub#GitHub_Hooks
>>>
>>> Apparently things have progressed to the point within Eclipse that we
>>> would be allowed to move our canonical repository from the eclipse
>>> foundation to github.  Within the team we are somewhat split on this
>>> approach but ultimately this is something that should have some
>>> feedback from the community at large.  This is your opportunity!
>>>
>>> In my opinion, many of you have spoken already by finding the mirror
>>> of jetty under  eclipse/jetty.project and submitting pull
>>> requests...which we historically have to reject because the allowed
>>> process required the usage of either bugzilla and/or gerrit...and that
>>> is only a mirror so anything accepted there would have been smoked on
>>> the next mirror sync anyway.
>>>
>>> If anyone is violently for this sort of change, please speak
>>> up....same if you are violently against!
>>>
>>> Note: in order for your pull request to be accepted you would still
>>> have to have an eclipse foundation cla in place and we would still
>>> follow all required ip policies and procedures....but you would at
>>> least have some pretty colored UI elements that explain some of these
>>> things.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? Feel free to reply to this thread or mail me directly if you
>>> want to provide private feedback.
>>>
>>> Jesse
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> jesse mcconnell
>>> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jetty-users mailing list
>>> jetty-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>>> from this list, visit
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jetty-users mailing list
>> jetty-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>> from this list, visit
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
>
>
>
>
> --
> Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
> http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
>
> _______________________________________________
> jetty-dev mailing list
> jetty-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-dev