On 19.10.2015 19:32, Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:42 AM Jared K. Smith <jsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Marcin Zajączkowski <mszpak@xxxxx> wrote: >> >>> I like the idea with mirroring Fedora Git to GitHub. Read only mirror >>> just to be a dedicated place for that kind of contributions (via pull >>> requests). >>> >> >> While I like the idea of making it easier for people to submit patches, >> I'm not sure setting up a read-only GitHub mirror is the answer. >> >> In my day job, I happen to maintain a huge GitHub mirror of a large open >> source code repository where the upstream has not yet moved to Git. >> Unfortunately, what happens is that people submit pull requests against the >> read-only mirror, but the upstream maintainers rarely if ever look at the >> pull requests. We end up closing most of the pull requests with a message >> that says "Contact upstream directly and try to get your patches to them." >> >> > The ASF uses a pubsub bot to notify project's devel mailing lists when a PR > is issued against the read-only mirrors on GitHub. This email contains > instructions on how to add a second remote and perform the pull request > manually. It also explains how to force the PR to be closed without write > access to the mirror (with a commit message that says something like "this > closes #X", where X is the PR number, which gets processed when the mirror > is next sync'd). In this way, it opens up the community to a wider audience > by enabling contributors to use tools they are comfortable with, but in a > way that doesn't technically add a dependency on GitHub. Fedora could do > something similar by automatically opening a BZ issue, in the same way > upstream monitoring opens up new BZs. > > I know this would be really useful, because before I submitted my first > package to Fedora, I had a slightly difficult time figuring out how to > contribute, or even check out and view a project's git repository (doing an > anonymous clone with fedpkg wasn't obvious). > > >> I also think it would be non-trivial to map Fedora users to GitHub >> accounts, or to keep said information in sync. >> >> > This would be non-trivial... but it's also completely unnecessary. The > mirrors can/should be read-only while the Fedora repos remain > authoritative, with maintainer write-access. > > The ASF does allow committers to affiliate with the ASF org in GitHub > (where the read-only mirrors exist) by voluntarily adding their GitHub > usernames to a database, but this doesn't get them any special access to > the mirrors... it's just for flair, to show off their membership on their > GitHub profile. As far as I'm concerned, this is a completely unnecessary > thing to do. Perhaps at some point, we could do this by offering a > voluntary field for GitHub username, but it's certainly not essential to > using GitHub to enable pull-requests. > > Of course, Fedora doesn't have to do it the way the ASF did, but I think > there's value in looking at what they've done, because there's value in > exposing Fedora's packages to a large (and growing) community of GitHub. This sounds very very cool. For reference: https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and -- Petr Spacek @ Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
