Re: priority list
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 3:24 AM Sai Boorlagadda wrote: > Hello Devs, > > I would like to understand some of the top priority items that we should > focus and spend our time on while we ramp up with new community members. > > Any pointers to the scope of the next release or a list of items we should > do as part of this transition. While going through the mailing list what > immediately caught my eye is CI/CD migration to Github actions. > I would say the number one priority is getting a CI instance setup. I guess you've seen what Mario said about his efforts on GitHub actions? Niall > > Sai >
Re: priority list
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 12:42, Mario Salazar de Torres wrote: > Hi, > About GitHub actions, there are currently some limitations you I pointed > out previously in the devlist. > Even tho, I was stuck in the process of migrating geode-native CI to GH > actions, mostly since I didn't have the necessary permissions. > If you want to have further info about GH actions, you can check Apache > BUILDS list. > > And as for Geode repository, considering the number of resources its CI > requires, I'd say GH actions is a no go... > Also, I think it was Dan Smith, the one that pointed out that Apache has a > Jenkins instance available, so every Apache project can use its resources. > My guess is that Apache Jenkins infra would be a better fit for Geode > repository. Still, it remains to be seen, since resource requirements on > that repository are really high. > > Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but at least I hope these pointers are > useful. Thanks Mario, that was helpful Niall > > /Mario > > > From: Niall Pemberton > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 10:46 AM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Re: priority list > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 3:24 AM Sai Boorlagadda > > wrote: > > > Hello Devs, > > > > I would like to understand some of the top priority items that we should > > focus and spend our time on while we ramp up with new community members. > > > > Any pointers to the scope of the next release or a list of items we > should > > do as part of this transition. While going through the mailing list what > > immediately caught my eye is CI/CD migration to Github actions. > > > > I would say the number one priority is getting a CI instance setup. I guess > you've seen what Mario said about his efforts on GitHub actions? > > Niall > > > > > > Sai > > >
Re: Remove Google Analytics from Geode 404.html page
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 17:49, Mark Bretl wrote: > Hi Niall, > > I have merged your PR. Thanks for updating! > Thanks alot Mark - much appreciated. It will stop Geode coming up on a Data Privacy report for using GA :) Niall > > Best regards, > > Mark > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 3:50 PM Niall Pemberton > > wrote: > > > Geode still has reference to Google Analytics on one page of the website: > > https://geode.apache.org/404.html > > > > I thought I would be able to remove it, but doesn't look like I have the > > "secret sauce" to do that. > > > > Could someone apply the following pull request please: > > https://github.com/apache/geode-site/pull/23 > > > > Thanks > > > > Niall > > >
Remove Google Analytics from Geode 404.html page
Geode still has reference to Google Analytics on one page of the website: https://geode.apache.org/404.html I thought I would be able to remove it, but doesn't look like I have the "secret sauce" to do that. Could someone apply the following pull request please: https://github.com/apache/geode-site/pull/23 Thanks Niall
Re: Open Geode PRs, CI
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 10:20, Arnout Engelen wrote: > Hello Geode community, > > As you know, the Geode PMC has voted to retire Geode to the Attic earlier, > but that sparked some interest in renewing activity in Geode maintenance. > > However, the three most recent PRs at > https://github.com/apache/geode/pulls > have not received much attention. Are there any Geode committers that could > review these? > Since they were minor dependency upgrades, I've approved & merged them. Niall > > Of course, the fact that the CI build is currently 'red' on the development > branch makes reviewing harder. What would you think about disabling a few > of the tests for now, so that PRs can be checked for regressions more > easily again? It seems there are only a few subprojects that cause the > failures (aside from the use of an outdated actions/upload-artifact > action). Who could pick that up? > > > Kind regards, > > -- > Arnout Engelen > ASF Security Response > Apache Pekko PMC member, ASF Member > NixOS Committer > Independent Open Source consultant >
