Hi everyone, I don't have a problem putting my modified fork in the new gallery. As Pat already mentioned, they only modify the "calls" on package namespace. If there are no objections, I'll clean them up and them in the new gallery with pio_min_version as 0.10. Once the donation grant is done, we can move/apply the changes in the Apache repo.
Thanks, Chan On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's no problem at all. I would like you all to be successful. > > > On Aug 20, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks Andy. Very good to hear. I think Donald is taking lead in SF last > I heard. As I said not trying to dump work on you :-) > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > With respect to my estimation of getting that SGA in about a week, I am > optimistic we can turn that around. I will do what I can to drive it. > > > > There will be no problem with third party (or templates of any > provenance) calling PIO code in an org.apache namespace going forward, of > course. > > > > I also don't think this is particularly new ground for Apache. > > > >> On Aug 20, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: > >> > >> "a week or so” is the first I’ve heard of an order of magnitude and > would agree if that’s true. I’ll remove the suggestion but I think there is > a bigger issue here. > >> > >> Understood about what would be granted and it would not be these > modified templates but that’s that way the PIO ecosystem is meant to work. > Templates will be modified and will go back into the gallery with their > “improvements” so these templates modified to work with PIO could live > side-by-side with the donated ones (and may yet if someone else does an > “improvement”). I’ve heard nothing said here to contradict that and would > be very disappointed if I did since it is one of the bigger features of PIO > IMO. It encourages this type of ecosystem. > >> > >> BTW this is what we should hope will happen with non-apache templates. > We should be reaching out to template maintainers (I’ll do this) to get > them to use the Apache release code and add their templates to the gallery. > If not, since all the ones I’ve seen have Apache licenses, anyone is free > to fork and do these mods then put them in the gallery. > >> > >> Sorry if this makes people think in new ways, I realize the notion of > templates doesn’t have many precedents in Apache so we are on somewhat new > territory, though this has been done many times by other OSS projects. > >> > >> > >> On Aug 20, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Another (minor) consideration is the donation will be by way of SGA > that specifies exact git shas. Those will be what are imported into the > Apache repos. Presumably the shas specified are not from this > fork-in-progress. I see no problem doing package munging and various other > things at this time to stage the changes for later cherry picking into the > new Apache repos, though. The SGA would grant rights to the base code and > subsequent changes will be picked over and committed by folks with ICLAs on > file. > >> > >> An alternative could be to release depending on templates in the old > namespace. It's fine for projects going through incubation to not have > everything in place up front. A release in this state might pass muster. > That said, why not wait a week or so and have a grant on file, packages > fixed up, and perfect clarity? > >> > >>> On Aug 20, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I don't think you should author code in the org.apache namespace that > has not gone through proper IP clearance channels. This came up with > Gearpump before it went into incubation. They dropped code on GitHub in the > org.apache package namespace. I asked if that was proper. The advice > received was it was not, because it did not originate from the foundation > through the proper processes. We asked them to change to something like > io.gearpump (IIRC) and they were happy to comply with the request. > >>> > >>> If the release you want to make depends on templates and those > templates have not yet been donated and imported, I think you should wait. > If you post a release of PIO that depends on templates in this uncertain > condition I'm afraid I would need to vote -1 (binding) until this is > resolved or we have clarification it's ok. > >>> > >>>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> No misunderstanding—so far at least :-) > >>>> > >>>> What we want to do it host the templates on Github as non-Apache > projects until the donation paper-work is done. This will remove a blocking > issue—templates that work with the new org namespace and have some (even if > incomplete) integration tests. We are thinking about the 7 mentioned in > this Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIO-24 > >>>> > >>>> If you want to push them to Github we can work from that. This is > completely non-Apache but with Apache licenses we should be on sound legal > ground. PIO was designed with template forking as part of the usage model. > >>>> > >>>> If you have any problem with this, that’s fine. I’ll start making the > same changes you’ve done. I have no problem assuming responsibility since I > already maintain a couple external templates. I just want to get a release > of PIO done. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 18, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Chan Lee <chanlee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Pat, > >>>> > >>>> I think there may have been a misunderstanding. The work I've done is > only local: > >>>> 1) I've cloned the 10 official PredictionIO templates and changed the > org namespace locally. > >>>> 2) I've added some tests in the main repo to make sure the templates > are compatible with the latest release. > >>>> > >>>> As of now, I don't have write access to PredictionIO org repos, and > the gallery certainly shouldn't list my fork as the "official" template. So > if the release must happen before template donation, I would make a PR to > each of the template repos to change org namespace and update minimum PIO > version as 0.10. I will leave out the tests for now. > >>>> > >>>> But personally, I think it would be better if we wait for the legal > grant issue to be resolved, so that it is clearer how template code should > be managed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com > <mailto:p...@occamsmachete.com>> wrote: > >>>> I think we are not waiting for the official template donation to > release PIO, can you point me to the templates you have working? I’ll make > sure they get added to the new gallery. We can push them to Apache once the > grant is done. Thanks for the help. > > >
