You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to discuss@petri.apache.org by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> on 2020/10/11 19:40:51 UTC
Buildstream.apache.org
When the buildstream mailing lists were created DNS was created.
% nslookup buildstream.apache.org
Server: 2001:558:feed::1
Address: 2001:558:feed::1#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: buildstream.apache.org
Address: 40.79.78.1
Name: buildstream.apache.org
Address: 95.216.24.32
Name: buildstream.apache.org
Address: 95.216.26.30
I recommend that until buildstream wants to create a full apache website that we have the domain redirect to https://petri.apache.org/buildstream/
The mentors can then update https://github.com/apache/petri-site/blob/master/content/pages/buildstream.md from time to time with useful information.
Regards,
Dave
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
> On Nov 18, 2020, at 1:51 AM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 17/11/2020 22.33, Sander Striker wrote:
>> To unblock progress, I'm fine with Petri at this point. We have ICLAs on
>> file now for: Tristan van Berkom, Jürg Billiter, Chandan Singh and Benjamin
>> Schubert. They have been on the private@buildstream.apache.org list as the
>> to-be PMC members for Buildstream since we created that.
>
> There should be nothing preventing us from requesting a buildstream LDAP group, much like podlings are made - it's just an LDAP group, it's not a canonical record. Adding people to petri would give them access to petri resources, it wouldn't do anything for buildstream resources (unless they were all punted to petri-buildstream-*.git etc), so adding to petri seems like a waste of time imho, and would require renames later on.
OK. I can agree with your approach, but I lack the tool knowledge you have. I would count on Whimsy for this, but Whimsy does not know about Buildstream as an entity.
I am fine with your creating the LDAP, Accounts, and connecting the two.
Regards,
Dave
>
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 17/11/2020 22.33, Sander Striker wrote:
>
> To unblock progress, I'm fine with Petri at this point. We have ICLAs on
> file now for: Tristan van Berkom, Jürg Billiter, Chandan Singh and Benjamin
> Schubert. They have been on the private@buildstream.apache.org list as the
> to-be PMC members for Buildstream since we created that.
>
There should be nothing preventing us from requesting a buildstream LDAP
group, much like podlings are made - it's just an LDAP group, it's not a
canonical record. Adding people to petri would give them access to petri
resources, it wouldn't do anything for buildstream resources (unless
they were all punted to petri-buildstream-*.git etc), so adding to petri
seems like a waste of time imho, and would require renames later on.
With regards,
Daniel.
Re: [VOTE] Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:22 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > To unblock progress, I'm fine with Petri at this point. We have ICLAs on
> > file now for: Tristan van Berkom, Jürg Billiter, Chandan Singh and
> Benjamin
> > Schubert. They have been on the private@buildstream.apache.org list as
> the
> > to-be PMC members for Buildstream since we created that.
>
> I see that these four ICLAs are properly filed. I don’t know their
> preferred apache ids. We need those to create the accounts.
>
> Account creation wants a “VOTE” thread.
>
> I’m making this a VOTE w/ my +1.
>
> [X] +1, Approve of making Buildstream future PMC into Petri committers.
> [ ] +0/-0. Don’t care.
> [ ] -1. I need to discuss this on private@petri.
>
>
I'm +1 to approving them as committers. I have a preference that we jump
straight to a Buildstream LDAP group, but if we have to do a hop to a
Petri-Buildstream LDAP group, then, so be it...let's not block forward
progress on that detail.
Cheers. -- justin
Re: [VOTE] Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:22 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
...
> > To unblock progress, I'm fine with Petri at this point. We have ICLAs on
> > file now for: Tristan van Berkom, Jürg Billiter, Chandan Singh and
> Benjamin
> > Schubert. They have been on the private@buildstream.apache.org list as
> the
> > to-be PMC members for Buildstream since we created that.
>
> I see that these four ICLAs are properly filed. I don’t know their
> preferred apache ids. We need those to create the accounts.
>
tvb, juergbi, chandan, benschubert - respectively.
> Account creation wants a “VOTE” thread.
>
> I’m making this a VOTE w/ my +1.
>
> [X] +1, Approve of making Buildstream future PMC into Petri committers.
> [ ] +0/-0. Don’t care.
> [ ] -1. I need to discuss this on private@petri.
>
> Best Reagards,
> Dave
>
Cheers,
Sander
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sander
> >
> > Regards,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Sander
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sander
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 1:43 AM Justin Erenkrantz <
> >>> justin@erenkrantz.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM Daniel Shahaf <
> d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:33 -0400:
> >>>>>>> I'd like to see the [Buildstream] GitHub migration complete
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I may have missed it, but have y'all considered implementing
> >>>>>> Infra↔GitLab glue, rather than migrating to GitHub?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My understanding was that Infra only supported GitHub as a master -
> any
> >>>>> integration with GitLab would be entirely upon the Buildstream
> >>> community to
> >>>>> support and maintain. Is that incorrect?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At this point, I believe that there is a clear technical path for a
> >>> GitHub
> >>>>> migration - which is really about moving the CI flow to GitHub
> Runners.
> >>>>> However, if that runs into blockers, we could investigate other
> >>> options.
> >>>>> If other ASF projects were to use GitLab as a master and have it be
> >>>>> centrally supported, that might change the calculus too...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers. — justin
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 4:22 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:14 PM Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:09 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>...
> >> Ideally we move it. Which will likely mean we clone it first, make sure
> >> CI works etc, and then cut over once that is done. But as per below, I
> >> think we want to go to the eventual namespace, not an intermittent one.
> >> Unless it shows up on github as /apache/buildstream instead of
> >> /apache/petri-buildstream, because that would be unfortunate.
>
We should talk about this more. Infra would really like to see
$OWNER(-$NAME(-$SUBNAME)).git
In this case, OWNER is the Apache Petri PMC.
Note that GitHub repositories follow renames. Worst case, running "git
remote set-url origin NEWNAME" will fix downstream clones. Repository
renames are actually pretty painless. There is a lot of other apparatus
that is way rougher. That is why (say) mailing lists are @buildstream.a.o
so that we don't have to redo those mailing lists in the future.
Note: I'm aware the Apache Incubator wants to have podling.incubator.a.o in
their usage. That is a choice they've made, but I would suggest Petri
doesn't need to follow suit. As long as Infra knows that the "buildstream"
hostname is owned by Apache Petri, then Infra doesn't care. We just need to
know who to reach out to, for any given hostname. (and Infra has this data
in https://github.com/apache/petri/blob/master/info.yaml)
>...
> >> I'd prefer BuildStream LDAP. Moving established projects around
> multiple
> >> times is not great.
>
Going straight to a Buildstream LDAP group is preferred by Infra. We don't
want to do renames. Especially at the LDAP level.
> To unblock progress, I'm fine with Petri at this point. We have ICLAs on
> > file now for: Tristan van Berkom, Jürg Billiter, Chandan Singh and
> Benjamin
> > Schubert. They have been on the private@buildstream.apache.org list as
> the
> > to-be PMC members for Buildstream since we created that.
>
> I see that these four ICLAs are properly filed. I don’t know their
> preferred apache ids. We need those to create the accounts.
>
> Account creation wants a “VOTE” thread.
>
That isn't entirely correct :-)
It *asks* for one, yes, but you can leave it blank. The Apache Subversion
PMC can file account requests with a single PMC member saying "make it so".
Generally, we have a short discussion to gather a bit of rough consensus,
and then the account request is filed.
In fact, it was me pushing back on the request form to make that field
optional. "My fault!!" hehe...
I’m making this a VOTE w/ my +1.
>
> [X] +1, Approve of making Buildstream future PMC into Petri committers.
> [ ] +0/-0. Don’t care.
> [ ] -1. I need to discuss this on private@petri.
>
I'm not voting :-) ... I suggest we have Infra create a Buildstream LDAP,
and put the new accounts into that group. (and of course, add any existing
accounts into the group, as appropriate)
As far as repositories, I think it would be easiest all around to start
with a -site.git repository and stitch that into Pelican and auto-publish
to buildstream.a.o
>...
> >>>>> My understanding was that Infra only supported GitHub as a master -
> any
> >>>>> integration with GitLab would be entirely upon the Buildstream
> >>> community to
> >>>>> support and maintain. Is that incorrect?
>
That is correct. A project or two has asked for GitLab and Infra has said
"we have no plans to add that integration, but if your project(s) want to
develop and test the integration, then Infra would most likely adopt it."
>...
> >>>>> If other ASF projects were to use GitLab as a master and have it be
> >>>>> centrally supported, that might change the calculus too...
>
Per above, nobody does at this point, as nobody has volunteered to do the
synchronization work back to ASF-based git repositories. (we wouldn't run a
GitLab installation; we'd just host git repositories, much like we don't
have a GitHub instance).
Cheers,
-g
[VOTE] Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
> On Nov 17, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:14 PM Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:09 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>> Unless others object here are the recommendations.
>>>
>>>> On Oct 30, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think the blockers are currently:
>>>> - not having an apache/buildstream git repository to migrate to
>>>
>>> Do you want to clone the repository or move it?
>>>
>>> We can certainly selfserve repositories into Petri.
>>>
>>
>> Ideally we move it. Which will likely mean we clone it first, make sure
>> CI works etc, and then cut over once that is done. But as per below, I
>> think we want to go to the eventual namespace, not an intermittent one.
>> Unless it shows up on github as /apache/buildstream instead of
>> /apache/petri-buildstream, because that would be unfortunate.
>>
>>
>>>> - not having LDAP in place to create committer accounts (iCLAs for the
>>>> to-be-pmc members should be arriving soon)
>>>
>>> Should we just make the initial committers of Buildstream into Petri
>>> committers or should we request Buildstream LDAP?
>>>
>>
>> I'd prefer BuildStream LDAP. Moving established projects around multiple
>> times is not great.
>>
>
> To unblock progress, I'm fine with Petri at this point. We have ICLAs on
> file now for: Tristan van Berkom, Jürg Billiter, Chandan Singh and Benjamin
> Schubert. They have been on the private@buildstream.apache.org list as the
> to-be PMC members for Buildstream since we created that.
I see that these four ICLAs are properly filed. I don’t know their preferred apache ids. We need those to create the accounts.
Account creation wants a “VOTE” thread.
I’m making this a VOTE w/ my +1.
[X] +1, Approve of making Buildstream future PMC into Petri committers.
[ ] +0/-0. Don’t care.
[ ] -1. I need to discuss this on private@petri.
Best Reagards,
Dave
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sander
>
> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sander
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Sander
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 1:43 AM Justin Erenkrantz <
>>> justin@erenkrantz.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:33 -0400:
>>>>>>> I'd like to see the [Buildstream] GitHub migration complete
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I may have missed it, but have y'all considered implementing
>>>>>> Infra↔GitLab glue, rather than migrating to GitHub?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding was that Infra only supported GitHub as a master - any
>>>>> integration with GitLab would be entirely upon the Buildstream
>>> community to
>>>>> support and maintain. Is that incorrect?
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point, I believe that there is a clear technical path for a
>>> GitHub
>>>>> migration - which is really about moving the CI flow to GitHub Runners.
>>>>> However, if that runs into blockers, we could investigate other
>>> options.
>>>>> If other ASF projects were to use GitLab as a master and have it be
>>>>> centrally supported, that might change the calculus too...
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers. — justin
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:14 PM Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:09 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi -
>>
>> Unless others object here are the recommendations.
>>
>> > On Oct 30, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think the blockers are currently:
>> > - not having an apache/buildstream git repository to migrate to
>>
>> Do you want to clone the repository or move it?
>>
>> We can certainly selfserve repositories into Petri.
>>
>
> Ideally we move it. Which will likely mean we clone it first, make sure
> CI works etc, and then cut over once that is done. But as per below, I
> think we want to go to the eventual namespace, not an intermittent one.
> Unless it shows up on github as /apache/buildstream instead of
> /apache/petri-buildstream, because that would be unfortunate.
>
>
>> > - not having LDAP in place to create committer accounts (iCLAs for the
>> > to-be-pmc members should be arriving soon)
>>
>> Should we just make the initial committers of Buildstream into Petri
>> committers or should we request Buildstream LDAP?
>>
>
> I'd prefer BuildStream LDAP. Moving established projects around multiple
> times is not great.
>
To unblock progress, I'm fine with Petri at this point. We have ICLAs on
file now for: Tristan van Berkom, Jürg Billiter, Chandan Singh and Benjamin
Schubert. They have been on the private@buildstream.apache.org list as the
to-be PMC members for Buildstream since we created that.
Cheers,
Sander
Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sander
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Sander
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 1:43 AM Justin Erenkrantz <
>> justin@erenkrantz.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:33 -0400:
>> >>>> I'd like to see the [Buildstream] GitHub migration complete
>> >>>
>> >>> I may have missed it, but have y'all considered implementing
>> >>> Infra↔GitLab glue, rather than migrating to GitHub?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My understanding was that Infra only supported GitHub as a master - any
>> >> integration with GitLab would be entirely upon the Buildstream
>> community to
>> >> support and maintain. Is that incorrect?
>> >>
>> >> At this point, I believe that there is a clear technical path for a
>> GitHub
>> >> migration - which is really about moving the CI flow to GitHub Runners.
>> >> However, if that runs into blockers, we could investigate other
>> options.
>> >> If other ASF projects were to use GitLab as a master and have it be
>> >> centrally supported, that might change the calculus too...
>> >>
>> >> Cheers. — justin
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl>.
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:09 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Unless others object here are the recommendations.
>
> > On Oct 30, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think the blockers are currently:
> > - not having an apache/buildstream git repository to migrate to
>
> Do you want to clone the repository or move it?
>
> We can certainly selfserve repositories into Petri.
>
Ideally we move it. Which will likely mean we clone it first, make sure CI
works etc, and then cut over once that is done. But as per below, I think
we want to go to the eventual namespace, not an intermittent one. Unless
it shows up on github as /apache/buildstream instead of
/apache/petri-buildstream, because that would be unfortunate.
> > - not having LDAP in place to create committer accounts (iCLAs for the
> > to-be-pmc members should be arriving soon)
>
> Should we just make the initial committers of Buildstream into Petri
> committers or should we request Buildstream LDAP?
>
I'd prefer BuildStream LDAP. Moving established projects around multiple
times is not great.
> Regards,
> Dave
>
Cheers,
Sander
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sander
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 1:43 AM Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:33 -0400:
> >>>> I'd like to see the [Buildstream] GitHub migration complete
> >>>
> >>> I may have missed it, but have y'all considered implementing
> >>> Infra↔GitLab glue, rather than migrating to GitHub?
> >>
> >>
> >> My understanding was that Infra only supported GitHub as a master - any
> >> integration with GitLab would be entirely upon the Buildstream
> community to
> >> support and maintain. Is that incorrect?
> >>
> >> At this point, I believe that there is a clear technical path for a
> GitHub
> >> migration - which is really about moving the CI flow to GitHub Runners.
> >> However, if that runs into blockers, we could investigate other options.
> >> If other ASF projects were to use GitLab as a master and have it be
> >> centrally supported, that might change the calculus too...
> >>
> >> Cheers. — justin
> >>
>
>
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
Hi -
Unless others object here are the recommendations.
> On Oct 30, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl> wrote:
>
> I think the blockers are currently:
> - not having an apache/buildstream git repository to migrate to
Do you want to clone the repository or move it?
We can certainly selfserve repositories into Petri.
> - not having LDAP in place to create committer accounts (iCLAs for the
> to-be-pmc members should be arriving soon)
Should we just make the initial committers of Buildstream into Petri committers or should we request Buildstream LDAP?
Regards,
Dave
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sander
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 1:43 AM Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:33 -0400:
>>>> I'd like to see the [Buildstream] GitHub migration complete
>>>
>>> I may have missed it, but have y'all considered implementing
>>> Infra↔GitLab glue, rather than migrating to GitHub?
>>
>>
>> My understanding was that Infra only supported GitHub as a master - any
>> integration with GitLab would be entirely upon the Buildstream community to
>> support and maintain. Is that incorrect?
>>
>> At this point, I believe that there is a clear technical path for a GitHub
>> migration - which is really about moving the CI flow to GitHub Runners.
>> However, if that runs into blockers, we could investigate other options.
>> If other ASF projects were to use GitLab as a master and have it be
>> centrally supported, that might change the calculus too...
>>
>> Cheers. — justin
>>
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl>.
I think the blockers are currently:
- not having an apache/buildstream git repository to migrate to
- not having LDAP in place to create committer accounts (iCLAs for the
to-be-pmc members should be arriving soon)
Cheers,
Sander
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 1:43 AM Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
> wrote:
>
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:33 -0400:
> > > I'd like to see the [Buildstream] GitHub migration complete
> >
> > I may have missed it, but have y'all considered implementing
> > Infra↔GitLab glue, rather than migrating to GitHub?
>
>
> My understanding was that Infra only supported GitHub as a master - any
> integration with GitLab would be entirely upon the Buildstream community to
> support and maintain. Is that incorrect?
>
> At this point, I believe that there is a clear technical path for a GitHub
> migration - which is really about moving the CI flow to GitHub Runners.
> However, if that runs into blockers, we could investigate other options.
> If other ASF projects were to use GitLab as a master and have it be
> centrally supported, that might change the calculus too...
>
> Cheers. — justin
>
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:33 -0400:
> > I'd like to see the [Buildstream] GitHub migration complete
>
> I may have missed it, but have y'all considered implementing
> Infra↔GitLab glue, rather than migrating to GitHub?
My understanding was that Infra only supported GitHub as a master - any
integration with GitLab would be entirely upon the Buildstream community to
support and maintain. Is that incorrect?
At this point, I believe that there is a clear technical path for a GitHub
migration - which is really about moving the CI flow to GitHub Runners.
However, if that runs into blockers, we could investigate other options.
If other ASF projects were to use GitLab as a master and have it be
centrally supported, that might change the calculus too...
Cheers. — justin
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:33 -0400:
> I'd like to see the [Buildstream] GitHub migration complete
I may have missed it, but have y'all considered implementing
Infra↔GitLab glue, rather than migrating to GitHub?
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:05 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I know, but that's not what I meant. I was referring specifically to
> > whether trademarks@ required cultures to have "petri" somewhere in their
> > website/repository/download URLs. Compare, for example,
> > https://foo.incubator.apache.org/ and https://foo.apache.org/.
>
> I think we need to ask Greg as Infra VP first.
>
When I created the mailing lists, I asked that question - the response then
was that the domain name was independent of any Petri/Incubator whatever.
So, using buildstream.apache.org was fine from Infra's perspective, AFAIK.
Obviously, Greg can chime in too as he wishes. But, the mailing list is
off buildstream.apache.org - I don't think that we need to overthink this.
When we get to the point of having a Buildstream 2.0 release posted, then
we can have a conversation about any branding in the actual release or
pages as Petri PMC desired. I'd like to see the GitHub migration complete
first before any formal releases are issued. But, the website doesn't
*have* to block on GitHub migration - the current content could largely be
ported over with suitable changes from GNOME to ASF. So, we could split
those tasks up, time permitting.
Cheers. -- justin
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net>.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 14, 2020, at 7:00 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>
> Sander Striker wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:47 +00:00:
>> I previously cleared Apache BuildStream with trademarks@.
>
> I know, but that's not what I meant. I was referring specifically to
> whether trademarks@ required cultures to have "petri" somewhere in their
> website/repository/download URLs. Compare, for example,
> https://foo.incubator.apache.org/ and https://foo.apache.org/.
I think we need to ask Greg as Infra VP first.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Cheers,
>
> Daniel
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sander
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:34 AM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dave Fisher wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:42 -0700:
>>>> A GitHub repos in the Apache space will be needed. Petri team - should
>>> this be apache/petri-buildstream-site or apache/buildstream-site?
>>>
>>> Does trademarks@ require the former?
>>>
>>> Is infra@ happy to (a) reserve the ${culture}-* repository basenames
>>> namespace until ${culture} exits Petri, and (b) rename a culture's
>>> repositories upon graduation, which are both prerequisites to choosing
>>> the former?
>>>
>>> And more generally, is there a race condition between a culture,
>>> a podling, and possibly a direct-to-TLP all using the same name?
>>> (Between setting up the infra resources, and doing the
>>> PODLINGNAMESEARCH that ought to catch the race.)
>>>
>>
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Sander Striker wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:47 +00:00:
> I previously cleared Apache BuildStream with trademarks@.
I know, but that's not what I meant. I was referring specifically to
whether trademarks@ required cultures to have "petri" somewhere in their
website/repository/download URLs. Compare, for example,
https://foo.incubator.apache.org/ and https://foo.apache.org/.
Cheers,
Daniel
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sander
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:34 AM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
> wrote:
>
> > Dave Fisher wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:42 -0700:
> > > A GitHub repos in the Apache space will be needed. Petri team - should
> > this be apache/petri-buildstream-site or apache/buildstream-site?
> >
> > Does trademarks@ require the former?
> >
> > Is infra@ happy to (a) reserve the ${culture}-* repository basenames
> > namespace until ${culture} exits Petri, and (b) rename a culture's
> > repositories upon graduation, which are both prerequisites to choosing
> > the former?
> >
> > And more generally, is there a race condition between a culture,
> > a podling, and possibly a direct-to-TLP all using the same name?
> > (Between setting up the infra resources, and doing the
> > PODLINGNAMESEARCH that ought to catch the race.)
> >
>
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Sander Striker <s....@striker.nl>.
I previously cleared Apache BuildStream with trademarks@. I'll have more
time this weekend to check some items off my TODO list.
Cheers,
Sander
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:34 AM Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
wrote:
> Dave Fisher wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:42 -0700:
> > A GitHub repos in the Apache space will be needed. Petri team - should
> this be apache/petri-buildstream-site or apache/buildstream-site?
>
> Does trademarks@ require the former?
>
> Is infra@ happy to (a) reserve the ${culture}-* repository basenames
> namespace until ${culture} exits Petri, and (b) rename a culture's
> repositories upon graduation, which are both prerequisites to choosing
> the former?
>
> And more generally, is there a race condition between a culture,
> a podling, and possibly a direct-to-TLP all using the same name?
> (Between setting up the infra resources, and doing the
> PODLINGNAMESEARCH that ought to catch the race.)
>
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Dave Fisher wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:42 -0700:
> A GitHub repos in the Apache space will be needed. Petri team - should this be apache/petri-buildstream-site or apache/buildstream-site?
Does trademarks@ require the former?
Is infra@ happy to (a) reserve the ${culture}-* repository basenames
namespace until ${culture} exits Petri, and (b) rename a culture's
repositories upon graduation, which are both prerequisites to choosing
the former?
And more generally, is there a race condition between a culture,
a podling, and possibly a direct-to-TLP all using the same name?
(Between setting up the infra resources, and doing the
PODLINGNAMESEARCH that ought to catch the race.)
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
Hi Sander,
Perhaps the best way to see what links the foundation would like to have on project sites is to look at the analysis here: https://whimsy.apache.org/site/ <https://whimsy.apache.org/site/> and https://whimsy.apache.org/pods/ <https://whimsy.apache.org/pods/>
We have not discussed any disclaimers for Petri cultures, but some indication that BuildStream is not yet an Apache project makes sense. Perhaps by reference to the petri.apache.org/buildstream page?
BTW - A pelican site is preferred by infra which is what buildstream.build is.
A GitHub repos in the Apache space will be needed. Petri team - should this be apache/petri-buildstream-site or apache/buildstream-site?
We’ll also need to start creating LDAP for Petri with new committers/apache ids.
Regards,
Dave
> On Oct 12, 2020, at 1:39 AM, Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I can ask on the dev@ list if someone is willing to put some effort into
> setting up a buildstream.apache.org site. There is an existing
> https://buildstream.build/ site, there needs to be some discussion on what
> would go where.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sander
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 9:41 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> When the buildstream mailing lists were created DNS was created.
>>
>> % nslookup buildstream.apache.org
>> Server: 2001:558:feed::1
>> Address: 2001:558:feed::1#53
>>
>> Non-authoritative answer:
>> Name: buildstream.apache.org
>> Address: 40.79.78.1
>> Name: buildstream.apache.org
>> Address: 95.216.24.32
>> Name: buildstream.apache.org
>> Address: 95.216.26.30
>>
>> I recommend that until buildstream wants to create a full apache website
>> that we have the domain redirect to https://petri.apache.org/buildstream/
>>
>> The mentors can then update
>> https://github.com/apache/petri-site/blob/master/content/pages/buildstream.md
>> from time to time with useful information.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
Re: Buildstream.apache.org
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
I can ask on the dev@ list if someone is willing to put some effort into
setting up a buildstream.apache.org site. There is an existing
https://buildstream.build/ site, there needs to be some discussion on what
would go where.
Cheers,
Sander
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 9:41 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> When the buildstream mailing lists were created DNS was created.
>
> % nslookup buildstream.apache.org
> Server: 2001:558:feed::1
> Address: 2001:558:feed::1#53
>
> Non-authoritative answer:
> Name: buildstream.apache.org
> Address: 40.79.78.1
> Name: buildstream.apache.org
> Address: 95.216.24.32
> Name: buildstream.apache.org
> Address: 95.216.26.30
>
> I recommend that until buildstream wants to create a full apache website
> that we have the domain redirect to https://petri.apache.org/buildstream/
>
> The mentors can then update
> https://github.com/apache/petri-site/blob/master/content/pages/buildstream.md
> from time to time with useful information.
>
> Regards,
> Dave