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 > > >> > > > > >
