I think that putting the Pesos project in an aurora* organization on GitHub might lead to the same confusion that you're concerned about with calling it aurora-pesos (or something to that effect). Personally, I think Pesos benefits the Mesos community at large, and I'm in favor of Zameer's approach: transferring ownership to the mesos GitHub organization.
-- Roger On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Brian Wickman <[email protected]> wrote: > My only reservation with aurora-* repos is that it discourages discovery > and will lead to confusion about the scope of the projects. pesos and > compactor are broadly useful to the mesos ecosystem, so names like > 'aurora-pesos' can genuinely draw people away. > > It sounds like the main concerns people have with the status quo revolves > around ownership (who can merge patches) and quality (that all code merged > to master is reviewed with the same scrutiny as the rest of Aurora.) I > think these are reasonable concerns, but I think they're more valid once we > rely upon the code for production. Right now pesos is purely an optional > feature, so I don't think that the above review should be blocked on the > "incubating" nature of pesos, otherwise we'll be stuck with a > chicken-and-egg situation where we have little way to vet the code in a > meaningful way. > > Here's a counterproposal: we create an Aurora top level project on github a > la mesos (call it aurora-incubating, aurora-project, apache-aurora, > whatever, since aurora is taken), giving all committers write access to all > projects therein. We may not be able to rely upon reviewboard, but we can > at least solve the problem of ownership. > > Thoughts? > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Jake Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We only sync reviewboard repos from our git-wip or svn servers. I would > > recommend that we move them into aurora-<project> name git repos so they > > can have their own release cycles > > > > -Jake > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Brian Wickman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I started work in r/32373 <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32373/> to > add > > > pesos <https://github.com/wickman/pesos> support for the Aurora > > executor. > > > Pesos is a pure python implementation of the Mesos API. Adding Pesos > > > support to Aurora will pave the way towards "pip install" and the > > standard > > > python packaging toolchain as a means to package/install the Aurora > > > executor, without relying upon a cumbersome Mesos build process that is > > > predicated on the nuances of libmesos and its myriad dependencies e.g. > > > glibc, C++11 and libsvn/apr. > > > > > > Pesos and its dependent library, compactor > > > <https://github.com/wickman/compactor>, are both projects on my > personal > > > github. I'd like to keep them independent repositories. My experience > > > shows that vendoring these sorts of things reduces discoverability and > > > peoples' willingness to contribute, and increases likelihood of forks. > > > > > > That being said, I'm not convinced they should be under my personal > > github > > > either because I'm a poor BDFL > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life> candidate. > > > Instead they should either be under the moniker of the mesos github > > > organization (there is precedent <https://github.com/mesos/mesos-go> > for > > > this) or we should create an Aurora organization for third party > projects > > > that tend to be developed under the Aurora umbrella, e.g. pystachio. > > > > > > Regardless of where they live, I think we should immediately start > using > > > reviewboard to do code reviews for patches. Does anyone know if this > is > > > feasible using reviews.apache.org if the code does not live under the > > > apache umbrella? (The code itself is Apache licensed.) > > > > > > ~brian > > > > > >
