+1 (my personal opinion) How to deal with the DSE-supporting code is a separate discussion IMO
- - -- --- ----- -------- ------------- Jacek Lewandowski czw., 16 maj 2024 o 10:21 Berenguer Blasi <berenguerbl...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > +1 ccm is super useful > On 16/5/24 10:09, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > > On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 16:24, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under >> governance of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well >> as for local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our >> muscle on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't >> track down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be >> worth revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache. >> >> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer >> have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos, >> so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part. >> Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s) >> long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong >> receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the >> primary hurdle. >> >> Anyone have any thoughts for or against? >> >> https://github.com/riptano/ccm >> > > > > We've been working on this along with the python-driver (just haven't > raised it yet). It is recognised, like the python-driver, as a key > dependency that would best be in the project. > > Obtaining the CLAs should be much easier, the contributors to ccm are less > diverse, being more the people we know already. > > We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do with > the drivers. I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no trickery > happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and have a rough > direction sketched out for when someone else comes along wanting to add > support for their proprietary product. We also don't want to be pushing > downstream users to be having to create their own forks either. > > Great to see general consensus (so far) in receiving it :) > > > >
