I spoke with Greg very briefly about the situation with OpenWhisk. He pointed out a couple of things to me.
- He presented essentially an either/or situation to the podling, essentially either you can stay on your existing and wait to graduate when ASF can handle github as master, or use what the ASF can provide as of now. At least this is how I understood it. - github as master is on infra's radar, but it has no ETA at this point. There are on going private discussions around it. As well as the git-dual solution. There's an interesting twist. It has to do with the distributed nature of git. While searching through documents online, there's only one place that mentions using an ASF managed repository as the "canonical" repository. I mention this, mostly because in SVN and CVS days this was a non-issue, you could check stuff out, but never have to worry about multiple copies floating around. Anyways, here's the doc from 4 years ago: https://www.apache.org/dev/writable-git I'll note that the release process docs make no such claim: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html I suspect that this is a case of "the docs are out of date" and what's there from 4 years ago is still true today. So at this point, we would require a policy change (from my POV) to even review a release from a podling that was not hosted by ASF. John On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 5:44 PM Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I second John, about Github uses. > > The statement "As a community we would like to keep the master repository > as well as issue tracking on GitHub > <https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GitHub>" at currently stand is a no-no > and putting in proposal would make it as goal which at this time not an > option in ASF infra. > > - Henry > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:29 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi John > > > > > > My understanding is, that we are well aware of this concern, which > others > > > have mentioned as well. > > > > > > Also Greg noted in the proposal: > > > > > > > gstein sez: the podling can only graduate within an approved > repository > > > system. The IPMC may have a differing opinion, but from an Infra > > > perspective: the OpenWhisk podling can continue with their usage of a > > > GitHub repository, but faces a clear obstacle: GitHub "as master [as > > > allowed by the Foundation]" must be approved and working before the > > > graduation, or they must migrate their primary to the Foundation's Git > > > repository (at git-wip) before they graduate. > > > > > > > I would like to get other IPMC members to weigh in on this comment, > before > > I comment. Greg is the Infra Admin, he is an IPMC member but that's > > obligatory. He is explicitly stating that the IPMC may have an opinion > > other than his own. > > > > > > > > > > I think this sounds like a good compromise to work on and the poddling > > > intends to work actively with Infra to see that we can stay in GitHub. > If > > > that is not possible, we byte the bullet accordingly. > > > > > > In addition, also according to Greg: > > > > > > > We require that anybody committing to a GitHub repository > authenticates > > > with BOTH: GitHub, and the ASF. No commits without that multiple > > > authentication. (this is based on our current experiments with Whimsy > and > > > Traffic Server; same rules would apply to this podling) > > > > > > The original discussion took place after the initial submission, see > [1] > > > > > > Does that help ? > > > > > > Regards > > > Felix > > > > > > [1] > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1c22a29b69e944ee725278aae05bd4 > > 1dea80d10d0d204c26eb4cb24c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > Am 04.11.2016 um 15:20 schrieb John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org > >: > > > > > > > > I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo. This is > > > still > > > > unresolved, as I understood it. > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi all > > > >> > > > >> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]: > > > >> > > > >> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected > > > >> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional > > > >> code donated by IBM during incubation. > > > >> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL > > > >> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and > > > >> intends to transfer to ASF > > > >> - fixed some typos > > > >> > > > >> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent > > > weeks, > > > >> I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an > > > incubating > > > >> project over the course of next weeks. > > > >> > > > >> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become > > > initial > > > >> committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway ! > > > >> > > > >> WDYT ? > > > >> > > > >> Regards > > > >> Felix > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
