Cos, The folks just followed Roman’s suggestion:
------------ So here's a set of steps you need to do: 1. make code available some place on GitHub 2. file and SGA with ASF pointing at a tag in that repo 3. once both of these are done -- restart the discussion thread ———————— Basically, if to take a look at the list of donations on this page [1] it’s up to a community to decide where to “incubate” a donation - on a private GitHub repo or in an ASF branch. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html <http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html> — Denis > On May 19, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > > Dmitriy, > > no one has ever suggested to keep the code in a separate repository > (once the grant issues were sorted out). Not sure where you get this > impression. I don't think there's anything to argue about ;) > -- > Take care, > Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik > 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 > > Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, > and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author > might be affiliated with at the moment of writing. > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan > <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: >> Cos, Roman, >> >> This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and >> more efficient process. >> >> I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for >> the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where we >> can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while >> the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside of >> Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize. >> Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the >> community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list. >> >> I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite >> right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken care >> of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down >> the road, in which case we can toss away the branch. >> >> Would you agree with this approach? >> >> D. >> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a >>>> huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar >>>> with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for >>>> one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated >>>> with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go" >>>> criteria. >>> >>> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above. >>> >>>> I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's >>>> graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise, >>>> feel like a community process of creating software should be thought >>>> through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or >>>> "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board >>>> with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of >>>> the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache. >>>> Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling >>>> products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases >>>> are important here, they convey a very different meaning. >>> >>> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released >>> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release? >>> >>> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery >>> deadline -- the >>> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it >>> needs to. >>> >>> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable >>> with >>> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Roman. >>>
