On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:48:15AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > I have an issue, based on past history, related to IBM's continued
> > efforts and dedication on ASF projects. I will not mention specific
> > projects, but the ASF has a number o
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I see that this is a proposal that originates, basically from IBM.
IBM + Adobe
> I have an issue, based on past history, related to IBM's continued
> efforts and dedication on ASF projects. I will not mention specific
> projects, but the A
I see that this is a proposal that originates, basically from IBM.
I have an issue, based on past history, related to IBM's continued
efforts and dedication on ASF projects. I will not mention specific
projects, but the ASF has a number of projects which died (or
almost died and only were revived
> Git repositories are effectively cryptographically-signed (weak/strong,
> immaterial to this discussion), so a readonly mirror on ASF hardware is
> equivalent to a read/write repository living on GitHub.
Allow me to disagree. The hashes are cryptographically strong. But it's only
sha1 hashes
PS we could Force the use of the new -S git Option and verify it with the Pub
key stored at the asf.
Needs a few Experiments but might work.
Lg,
Strub
On Fri, 14/10/16, Mark Struberg wrote:
Subject: Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Mark Struberg
wrote:
> The problem with github is that we (ASF) cannot give any guarantees if the
> main stuff doesn't originate from our own hardware.
>
Git repositories are effectively cryptographically-signed (weak/strong,
immaterial to this discussion), so a
Hi Mark
Understood. And these are valid points to be discussed in the larger context of
whether ASF supports GitHub as a primary repository. Which in turn is outside
of the scope of this proposal. And which is where this OpenWhiz community will
have a vested interest in participating.
And as G
The problem with github is that we (ASF) cannot give any guarantees if the main
stuff doesn't originate from our own hardware.
Not whether the ticket system doesn't loose all tickets (didn't that happen in
the past?) nor whether really only IP clean stuff got committed.
You e.g. have no clue if
Hi John
This also ties into Mark’s question earlier on.
The OpenWhisk part of the proposal is currently being developed in GitHub and
the developers are used to the GitHub flow and features including but not
limited to GitHub Issues.
We have discussed this topic before proposing the project an
Sam,
Can your or someone representing the proposed podling explain why using
github as master is preferable to the current mirror strategy in use?
John
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:29 AM Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Sam
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Attached to this message is a proposed new project - Apache OpenWhisk.
>>
>> The text of the proposal is included below. Additionally, the proposal is
>> in draft form
Why isn't it enough to just mirror to github?
I only quickly read through the proposal and I'm not sure if thy just stated
that _currently_ the repo is on github.
With GIT it makes no difference at all where the repo is hosted IF you have a
track record (which ASF git-wip does, but github doesn
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Attached to this message is a proposed new project - Apache OpenWhisk.
>
> The text of the proposal is included below. Additionally, the proposal is
> in draft form on the Wiki, where we will make any required changes:
>
> htt
13 matches
Mail list logo
