NOTE: This poll closes on February 28th, 2018
Location of information related to the use of GitHub for Papyrus
Poll Question
Do you approve the use of GitHub as a tool for the versioning of ONAP Papyrus Models?
Please put your @name in the Approve or Disapprove Column followed by any comments you might have.
| Approve | Disapprove | Poll Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Brian Hedstrom | This is needed to track Model Committers | |
| Ditto... | ||
| Nigel Davis | We can gain insight from ONF/MEF usage | |
| Andy Mayer | Agree | |
| Jessie S Jewitt | Agree with Nigel's comment | |
| Xu Yang | Governance issues need to be considered | |
| Kevin Scaggs | Not aware of another viable option, and also agree with Nigel's comment. | |
| Agree - github is used as a secondary repo for a some of our components and third party libraries | ||
| Arun Gupta | ||
| spolston | ||
| agree, seems no better tools than github | ||
| Lingli Deng |
4 Comments
Victor Morales
Does this mean that code reviews are going to be done via pull requests instead of existing Gerrit infrastructure?
Jessie S Jewitt
We are in the process of defining the transition to Papyrus, and that includes the governance of the model. It has yet to be defined. All I can say as a member of an SDO that uses Papyrus/GitHub is that one person owns a model fragment, and that person has regular model review meetings where decisions are made regarding changes to the model. Comments are also accepted at the moment of a final pull request, but usually the issues are resolved before then.
Hui Deng
how could guantee to let not just one committer to approve the submission?
Arun Gupta
If anyone has open source project experience of how to get various projects to conform to a common data model as appropriate, I think we all would appreciate hearing how it was done.