Moving to GitHub (project Skara)

[Marcus Hirt]

Sure. Tuning the process as we go will certainly be possible and
likely necessary. That said, we should, of course, discuss the initial
settings to avoid as much later grief as possible.

These are some of the things I am considering for the process:
1. Reviews are required. One reviewer or two committers.
2. A bug ID will be required for each change (let's discuss if you are
of a different opinion).
3. Notifications for pushed commits will be sent to jmc-dev.
4. Pull requests will be mirrored to jmc-dev.

Kind regards,
Marcus

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 5:53 PM Mario Torre <neugens at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 30/08/2019 13:43, Klara Ward wrote:
> > +1 for GitHub
>
> I'm a bit skeptical to be honest, we should first define what the new
> process will be before buying the new and shiny.
>
> For instance, it's my understanding that we want to get rid of webrevs
> and only use github pull requests, however that would put us in a
> situation where jmc is different from the other openjdk projects. Emails
> also give us a great overview of what the project is doing, I'm afraid
> github will hide most of this making more difficult to reconstruct the
> history and evolution of the project.
>
> Of course, I do like some aspect, for a reviewer a pull request is
> probably a great way to know a review is necessary, so I don't want to
> just rule out this move entirely.
>
> From my team the consensus was that before moving to github we should
> have a very clearly defined process and stick with it.
>
> I would personally add that it would be best to not be among the early
> adopters, and rather follow what the rest of the openjdk projects do, in
> particular openjdk itself, since we have such a close dependency on it
> and we are citizens of the same organisation.
>
> Cheers,
> Mario
>
> --
> Mario Torre
> Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
> 9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898