You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> on 2016/03/18 16:27:32 UTC
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com> wrote:
>
> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
>
> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality. The ASF does not have
> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.
>
> What if we did the following:
> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have
> 'owner' role representation.
> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
> repo. This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish
> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack project
> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it. There are probably
> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything
> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a
> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will
> be no segmentation of the community.
> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project, so
> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
> "fork".
>
> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
> direction.
>
> What do you all think?
+1
I'm pleased to see this being discussed on the dev list; and I'm ashamed
that the board hasn't been more responsive. Suffice it to say that this
issue now has the board's attention.
On one hand, I'm a bit concerned that things are moving too quickly; and
on the other hand I feel that it is time to rip the bandage off. So I
would like to simultaneously encourage you (collectively) to think
further outside of the box, and yet not be too impatient despite the
previous lack of response. I'm the one that pushed through the approval
of the Whimsy experiment, and I'm willing to help here.
What would you be able to do if the git-dual experiment were expanded to
CloudStack that you couldn't do with the proposal above? I suggest that
you take full advantage of the fact that people are now listening.
Be aware that perception matters. If you go to
https://github.com/cloudstack/cloudstack, you will see in small print
"forked from apache/cloudstack" and then in slightly larger font "Mirror
of Apache Cloudstack". There should be an edit link on the latter for
the owners of the organization, I'd like to discuss what should be there.
I personally believe that the ASF has a demonstrable interest in being
able to establish provenance, but I don't believe that taking over
control of the ability of projects to set up Travis and other
integrations is a necessary consequence of that. But overall I agree
that if granularity of control for a single GitHub organization is an
issue, then having multiple GitHub organizations needs to be explored as
an option.
How can I help? I'd like to bring this proposal back to the board for
wider review so that nothing important is missed. If there are issues
that come up, I will help flatten them.
- Sam Ruby
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 (maybe put/fork upr in there to prevent any cleaning from happening? ;)
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes exactly. I don't think we should delete the org, just the repo. I think
> the usage of that org is out of scope for this conversation and will likely
> change based on this outcome. I think we should put that org on ice for the
> time being.
> On Mar 19, 2016 9:59 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I see you found the vote thread. Thanks for voting. :)
> > >
> > > For now I think it is best that we try to avoid using the cloudstack
> org
> > > for anything in order to mitigate confusion and try to get everyone on
> > the
> > > same page. We are charting new territory here, so removing as many
> > > unnecessary distractions and causes for cloudy perception of what we
> are
> > > trying to achieve is paramount IMO.
> > >
> > of course
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I personally think we should remove the cloudstack/cloudstack repo at
> > this
> > > point as I think it is more of a liability in this process than
> anything.
> > >
> > yes, but only the repository and not the organisation
> >
> >
>
--
Daan
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>.
Yes exactly. I don't think we should delete the org, just the repo. I think
the usage of that org is out of scope for this conversation and will likely
change based on this outcome. I think we should put that org on ice for the
time being.
On Mar 19, 2016 9:59 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I see you found the vote thread. Thanks for voting. :)
> >
> > For now I think it is best that we try to avoid using the cloudstack org
> > for anything in order to mitigate confusion and try to get everyone on
> the
> > same page. We are charting new territory here, so removing as many
> > unnecessary distractions and causes for cloudy perception of what we are
> > trying to achieve is paramount IMO.
> >
> of course
>
>
>
> >
> > I personally think we should remove the cloudstack/cloudstack repo at
> this
> > point as I think it is more of a liability in this process than anything.
> >
> yes, but only the repository and not the organisation
>
>
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I see you found the vote thread. Thanks for voting. :)
>
> For now I think it is best that we try to avoid using the cloudstack org
> for anything in order to mitigate confusion and try to get everyone on the
> same page. We are charting new territory here, so removing as many
> unnecessary distractions and causes for cloudy perception of what we are
> trying to achieve is paramount IMO.
>
of course
>
> I personally think we should remove the cloudstack/cloudstack repo at this
> point as I think it is more of a liability in this process than anything.
>
yes, but only the repository and not the organisation
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>.
I see you found the vote thread. Thanks for voting. :)
For now I think it is best that we try to avoid using the cloudstack org
for anything in order to mitigate confusion and try to get everyone on the
same page. We are charting new territory here, so removing as many
unnecessary distractions and causes for cloudy perception of what we are
trying to achieve is paramount IMO.
I personally think we should remove the cloudstack/cloudstack repo at this
point as I think it is more of a liability in this process than anything.
On Mar 19, 2016 9:45 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hm, Will let's use a vote thread for voting. My brain is old and rigid and
> needs the clarity of it. Just to be clear, are we keeping the cloudstack
> organisation for experimenting and we do the move to apache-cloudstack? I
> am not sure if github has a policy on naming of organisations so It would
> be wise to keep cloudstack around in our control.
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I already created a vote thread in the dev@ mailing list. I wanted to
> try
> > to get consensus in the community as well. Please feel free to comment
> and
> > such in that thread. Having ASF board members participating in that
> thread
> > will be valuable.
> >
> > Thanks. :)
> > On Mar 18, 2016 6:54 PM, "Chris Mattmann" <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Will all of your actions below sound like a sound plan to me.
> > > Consider this the discuss thread. Get feedback for 24-48 hours,
> > > then VOTE, then proceed :-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens
> > > <ws...@cloudops.com>
> > > Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > > Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:30 PM
> > > To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack
> > >
> > > >Hey All,
> > > >I am going to try to keep moving this forward, and as such, I have
> > created
> > > >the 'apache-cloudstack' organization in github. I have invited
> everyone
> > > >who is in the current 'cloudstack' organization as owners as well as
> Sam
> > > >and Chris (also as owners).
> > > >
> > > >I think using this github org is probably the right one to use moving
> > > >forward with this proposal since it better reflects what the org
> > > >represents.
> > > >
> > > >Sam and Chris, I would like to get your suggestions for how we should
> > plan
> > > >to move forward since I think there is probably going to be more
> > logistics
> > > >and details to work through on your (ASF board) side of things.
> > > >
> > > >To reiterate, I think the best and most seamless approach will be to
> > > >actually transfer ownership of the 'apache/cloudstack' repo to the
> > > >'apache-cloudstack' org to be represented as
> > > >'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack'. This will move all of the PRs and
> will
> > > >also setup redirection of requests from 'apache/cloudstack' to
> > > >'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack' which is really important for all
> > existing
> > > >links etc...
> > > >
> > > >I also think we should also consider deleting the
> > 'cloudstack/cloudstack'
> > > >repository unless anyone is actively using it for testing in order to
> > > >reduce confusion on the topic.
> > > >
> > > >I will create a VOTE thread so the community, and the participating
> ASF
> > > >board members, can officially sign off on the proposal and give
> > feedback.
> > > >
> > > >Cheers,
> > > >
> > > >*Will STEVENS*
> > > >Lead Developer
> > > >
> > > >*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> > > >420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> > > >w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'm more concerned that the page is indistinguishable from a
> fork,
> > > >>and
> > > >> >> gives no indication of official status. That may be OK for a
> work
> > in
> > > >> >> progress, but isn't ideal as a final solution. I'll share that
> > I've
> > > >> >> heard (second and third hand) reports of people who only have
> heard
> > > >>of
> > > >> >> there being an "external fork", and have drawn incorrect
> > conclusions
> > > >> >> from that. I think we need to be careful about how this is
> > > >>explained,
> > > >> >> as perceptions matter.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have updated the organization description and added our website
> > and
> > > >> dev@ address.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> By contrast, if you go to:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> https://github.com/apache/whimsy
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What you will see in place of "Mirror of xxx" is "Apache Whimsy".
> > I
> > > >> >> grant you that it is a small thing,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > We can easily change “Mirror of Apache CloudStack” to “Apache
> > > >> CloudStack”.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > But I think lots of people will get upset as it will really mean
> > that
> > > >> this is a move away from ASF infra.
> > > >> > Or maybe I missing your point.
> > > >>
> > > >> Suggestion for now: “Mirror of Apache CloudStack for testing
> purposes
> > > >> only”.
> > > >>
> > > >> While what is there now is technically correct, it is incomplete.
> In
> > > >> particular it can, and has, caused confusion. Based on Will's
> > > >> comments earlier in this thread, I believe that my suggestion is an
> > > >> accurate portrayal of the current status, otherwise please
> substitute
> > > >> a more accurate description. (the subtext here: I am not an ASF
> > > >> Director stepping in and demanding change, so please don't take
> > > >> anything I say as an edict, I'm simply participating in the
> > > >> conversation).
> > > >>
> > > >> Longer term, this may very well be "Apache CloudStack" in the same
> > > >> sense that the github whimsy repository is "Apache Whimsy". Or the
> > > >> code could end up in a different place, like the apache-cloudstack
> > > >> organization I suggested previously.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Sam Ruby
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Hm, Will let's use a vote thread for voting. My brain is old and rigid and
needs the clarity of it. Just to be clear, are we keeping the cloudstack
organisation for experimenting and we do the move to apache-cloudstack? I
am not sure if github has a policy on naming of organisations so It would
be wise to keep cloudstack around in our control.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I already created a vote thread in the dev@ mailing list. I wanted to try
> to get consensus in the community as well. Please feel free to comment and
> such in that thread. Having ASF board members participating in that thread
> will be valuable.
>
> Thanks. :)
> On Mar 18, 2016 6:54 PM, "Chris Mattmann" <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Will all of your actions below sound like a sound plan to me.
> > Consider this the discuss thread. Get feedback for 24-48 hours,
> > then VOTE, then proceed :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens
> > <ws...@cloudops.com>
> > Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:30 PM
> > To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack
> >
> > >Hey All,
> > >I am going to try to keep moving this forward, and as such, I have
> created
> > >the 'apache-cloudstack' organization in github. I have invited everyone
> > >who is in the current 'cloudstack' organization as owners as well as Sam
> > >and Chris (also as owners).
> > >
> > >I think using this github org is probably the right one to use moving
> > >forward with this proposal since it better reflects what the org
> > >represents.
> > >
> > >Sam and Chris, I would like to get your suggestions for how we should
> plan
> > >to move forward since I think there is probably going to be more
> logistics
> > >and details to work through on your (ASF board) side of things.
> > >
> > >To reiterate, I think the best and most seamless approach will be to
> > >actually transfer ownership of the 'apache/cloudstack' repo to the
> > >'apache-cloudstack' org to be represented as
> > >'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack'. This will move all of the PRs and will
> > >also setup redirection of requests from 'apache/cloudstack' to
> > >'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack' which is really important for all
> existing
> > >links etc...
> > >
> > >I also think we should also consider deleting the
> 'cloudstack/cloudstack'
> > >repository unless anyone is actively using it for testing in order to
> > >reduce confusion on the topic.
> > >
> > >I will create a VOTE thread so the community, and the participating ASF
> > >board members, can officially sign off on the proposal and give
> feedback.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >
> > >*Will STEVENS*
> > >Lead Developer
> > >
> > >*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> > >420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> > >w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
> > >
> > >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm more concerned that the page is indistinguishable from a fork,
> > >>and
> > >> >> gives no indication of official status. That may be OK for a work
> in
> > >> >> progress, but isn't ideal as a final solution. I'll share that
> I've
> > >> >> heard (second and third hand) reports of people who only have heard
> > >>of
> > >> >> there being an "external fork", and have drawn incorrect
> conclusions
> > >> >> from that. I think we need to be careful about how this is
> > >>explained,
> > >> >> as perceptions matter.
> > >> >
> > >> > I have updated the organization description and added our website
> and
> > >> dev@ address.
> > >> >
> > >> >> By contrast, if you go to:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> https://github.com/apache/whimsy
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What you will see in place of "Mirror of xxx" is "Apache Whimsy".
> I
> > >> >> grant you that it is a small thing,
> > >> >
> > >> > We can easily change “Mirror of Apache CloudStack” to “Apache
> > >> CloudStack”.
> > >> >
> > >> > But I think lots of people will get upset as it will really mean
> that
> > >> this is a move away from ASF infra.
> > >> > Or maybe I missing your point.
> > >>
> > >> Suggestion for now: “Mirror of Apache CloudStack for testing purposes
> > >> only”.
> > >>
> > >> While what is there now is technically correct, it is incomplete. In
> > >> particular it can, and has, caused confusion. Based on Will's
> > >> comments earlier in this thread, I believe that my suggestion is an
> > >> accurate portrayal of the current status, otherwise please substitute
> > >> a more accurate description. (the subtext here: I am not an ASF
> > >> Director stepping in and demanding change, so please don't take
> > >> anything I say as an edict, I'm simply participating in the
> > >> conversation).
> > >>
> > >> Longer term, this may very well be "Apache CloudStack" in the same
> > >> sense that the github whimsy repository is "Apache Whimsy". Or the
> > >> code could end up in a different place, like the apache-cloudstack
> > >> organization I suggested previously.
> > >>
> > >> - Sam Ruby
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Daan
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>.
I already created a vote thread in the dev@ mailing list. I wanted to try
to get consensus in the community as well. Please feel free to comment and
such in that thread. Having ASF board members participating in that thread
will be valuable.
Thanks. :)
On Mar 18, 2016 6:54 PM, "Chris Mattmann" <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Will all of your actions below sound like a sound plan to me.
> Consider this the discuss thread. Get feedback for 24-48 hours,
> then VOTE, then proceed :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens
> <ws...@cloudops.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:30 PM
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack
>
> >Hey All,
> >I am going to try to keep moving this forward, and as such, I have created
> >the 'apache-cloudstack' organization in github. I have invited everyone
> >who is in the current 'cloudstack' organization as owners as well as Sam
> >and Chris (also as owners).
> >
> >I think using this github org is probably the right one to use moving
> >forward with this proposal since it better reflects what the org
> >represents.
> >
> >Sam and Chris, I would like to get your suggestions for how we should plan
> >to move forward since I think there is probably going to be more logistics
> >and details to work through on your (ASF board) side of things.
> >
> >To reiterate, I think the best and most seamless approach will be to
> >actually transfer ownership of the 'apache/cloudstack' repo to the
> >'apache-cloudstack' org to be represented as
> >'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack'. This will move all of the PRs and will
> >also setup redirection of requests from 'apache/cloudstack' to
> >'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack' which is really important for all existing
> >links etc...
> >
> >I also think we should also consider deleting the 'cloudstack/cloudstack'
> >repository unless anyone is actively using it for testing in order to
> >reduce confusion on the topic.
> >
> >I will create a VOTE thread so the community, and the participating ASF
> >board members, can officially sign off on the proposal and give feedback.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >*Will STEVENS*
> >Lead Developer
> >
> >*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> >420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> >w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
> >
> >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm more concerned that the page is indistinguishable from a fork,
> >>and
> >> >> gives no indication of official status. That may be OK for a work in
> >> >> progress, but isn't ideal as a final solution. I'll share that I've
> >> >> heard (second and third hand) reports of people who only have heard
> >>of
> >> >> there being an "external fork", and have drawn incorrect conclusions
> >> >> from that. I think we need to be careful about how this is
> >>explained,
> >> >> as perceptions matter.
> >> >
> >> > I have updated the organization description and added our website and
> >> dev@ address.
> >> >
> >> >> By contrast, if you go to:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://github.com/apache/whimsy
> >> >>
> >> >> What you will see in place of "Mirror of xxx" is "Apache Whimsy". I
> >> >> grant you that it is a small thing,
> >> >
> >> > We can easily change “Mirror of Apache CloudStack” to “Apache
> >> CloudStack”.
> >> >
> >> > But I think lots of people will get upset as it will really mean that
> >> this is a move away from ASF infra.
> >> > Or maybe I missing your point.
> >>
> >> Suggestion for now: “Mirror of Apache CloudStack for testing purposes
> >> only”.
> >>
> >> While what is there now is technically correct, it is incomplete. In
> >> particular it can, and has, caused confusion. Based on Will's
> >> comments earlier in this thread, I believe that my suggestion is an
> >> accurate portrayal of the current status, otherwise please substitute
> >> a more accurate description. (the subtext here: I am not an ASF
> >> Director stepping in and demanding change, so please don't take
> >> anything I say as an edict, I'm simply participating in the
> >> conversation).
> >>
> >> Longer term, this may very well be "Apache CloudStack" in the same
> >> sense that the github whimsy repository is "Apache Whimsy". Or the
> >> code could end up in a different place, like the apache-cloudstack
> >> organization I suggested previously.
> >>
> >> - Sam Ruby
> >>
>
>
>
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Will all of your actions below sound like a sound plan to me.
Consider this the discuss thread. Get feedback for 24-48 hours,
then VOTE, then proceed :-)
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens
<ws...@cloudops.com>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:30 PM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack
>Hey All,
>I am going to try to keep moving this forward, and as such, I have created
>the 'apache-cloudstack' organization in github. I have invited everyone
>who is in the current 'cloudstack' organization as owners as well as Sam
>and Chris (also as owners).
>
>I think using this github org is probably the right one to use moving
>forward with this proposal since it better reflects what the org
>represents.
>
>Sam and Chris, I would like to get your suggestions for how we should plan
>to move forward since I think there is probably going to be more logistics
>and details to work through on your (ASF board) side of things.
>
>To reiterate, I think the best and most seamless approach will be to
>actually transfer ownership of the 'apache/cloudstack' repo to the
>'apache-cloudstack' org to be represented as
>'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack'. This will move all of the PRs and will
>also setup redirection of requests from 'apache/cloudstack' to
>'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack' which is really important for all existing
>links etc...
>
>I also think we should also consider deleting the 'cloudstack/cloudstack'
>repository unless anyone is actively using it for testing in order to
>reduce confusion on the topic.
>
>I will create a VOTE thread so the community, and the participating ASF
>board members, can officially sign off on the proposal and give feedback.
>
>Cheers,
>
>*Will STEVENS*
>Lead Developer
>
>*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm more concerned that the page is indistinguishable from a fork,
>>and
>> >> gives no indication of official status. That may be OK for a work in
>> >> progress, but isn't ideal as a final solution. I'll share that I've
>> >> heard (second and third hand) reports of people who only have heard
>>of
>> >> there being an "external fork", and have drawn incorrect conclusions
>> >> from that. I think we need to be careful about how this is
>>explained,
>> >> as perceptions matter.
>> >
>> > I have updated the organization description and added our website and
>> dev@ address.
>> >
>> >> By contrast, if you go to:
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/apache/whimsy
>> >>
>> >> What you will see in place of "Mirror of xxx" is "Apache Whimsy". I
>> >> grant you that it is a small thing,
>> >
>> > We can easily change “Mirror of Apache CloudStack” to “Apache
>> CloudStack”.
>> >
>> > But I think lots of people will get upset as it will really mean that
>> this is a move away from ASF infra.
>> > Or maybe I missing your point.
>>
>> Suggestion for now: “Mirror of Apache CloudStack for testing purposes
>> only”.
>>
>> While what is there now is technically correct, it is incomplete. In
>> particular it can, and has, caused confusion. Based on Will's
>> comments earlier in this thread, I believe that my suggestion is an
>> accurate portrayal of the current status, otherwise please substitute
>> a more accurate description. (the subtext here: I am not an ASF
>> Director stepping in and demanding change, so please don't take
>> anything I say as an edict, I'm simply participating in the
>> conversation).
>>
>> Longer term, this may very well be "Apache CloudStack" in the same
>> sense that the github whimsy repository is "Apache Whimsy". Or the
>> code could end up in a different place, like the apache-cloudstack
>> organization I suggested previously.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
Hey All,
I am going to try to keep moving this forward, and as such, I have created
the 'apache-cloudstack' organization in github. I have invited everyone
who is in the current 'cloudstack' organization as owners as well as Sam
and Chris (also as owners).
I think using this github org is probably the right one to use moving
forward with this proposal since it better reflects what the org
represents.
Sam and Chris, I would like to get your suggestions for how we should plan
to move forward since I think there is probably going to be more logistics
and details to work through on your (ASF board) side of things.
To reiterate, I think the best and most seamless approach will be to
actually transfer ownership of the 'apache/cloudstack' repo to the
'apache-cloudstack' org to be represented as
'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack'. This will move all of the PRs and will
also setup redirection of requests from 'apache/cloudstack' to
'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack' which is really important for all existing
links etc...
I also think we should also consider deleting the 'cloudstack/cloudstack'
repository unless anyone is actively using it for testing in order to
reduce confusion on the topic.
I will create a VOTE thread so the community, and the participating ASF
board members, can officially sign off on the proposal and give feedback.
Cheers,
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm more concerned that the page is indistinguishable from a fork, and
> >> gives no indication of official status. That may be OK for a work in
> >> progress, but isn't ideal as a final solution. I'll share that I've
> >> heard (second and third hand) reports of people who only have heard of
> >> there being an "external fork", and have drawn incorrect conclusions
> >> from that. I think we need to be careful about how this is explained,
> >> as perceptions matter.
> >
> > I have updated the organization description and added our website and
> dev@ address.
> >
> >> By contrast, if you go to:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/whimsy
> >>
> >> What you will see in place of "Mirror of xxx" is "Apache Whimsy". I
> >> grant you that it is a small thing,
> >
> > We can easily change “Mirror of Apache CloudStack” to “Apache
> CloudStack”.
> >
> > But I think lots of people will get upset as it will really mean that
> this is a move away from ASF infra.
> > Or maybe I missing your point.
>
> Suggestion for now: “Mirror of Apache CloudStack for testing purposes
> only”.
>
> While what is there now is technically correct, it is incomplete. In
> particular it can, and has, caused confusion. Based on Will's
> comments earlier in this thread, I believe that my suggestion is an
> accurate portrayal of the current status, otherwise please substitute
> a more accurate description. (the subtext here: I am not an ASF
> Director stepping in and demanding change, so please don't take
> anything I say as an edict, I'm simply participating in the
> conversation).
>
> Longer term, this may very well be "Apache CloudStack" in the same
> sense that the github whimsy repository is "Apache Whimsy". Or the
> code could end up in a different place, like the apache-cloudstack
> organization I suggested previously.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 18, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm more concerned that the page is indistinguishable from a fork, and
>> gives no indication of official status. That may be OK for a work in
>> progress, but isn't ideal as a final solution. I'll share that I've
>> heard (second and third hand) reports of people who only have heard of
>> there being an "external fork", and have drawn incorrect conclusions
>> from that. I think we need to be careful about how this is explained,
>> as perceptions matter.
>
> I have updated the organization description and added our website and dev@ address.
>
>> By contrast, if you go to:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/whimsy
>>
>> What you will see in place of "Mirror of xxx" is "Apache Whimsy". I
>> grant you that it is a small thing,
>
> We can easily change “Mirror of Apache CloudStack” to “Apache CloudStack”.
>
> But I think lots of people will get upset as it will really mean that this is a move away from ASF infra.
> Or maybe I missing your point.
Suggestion for now: “Mirror of Apache CloudStack for testing purposes only”.
While what is there now is technically correct, it is incomplete. In
particular it can, and has, caused confusion. Based on Will's
comments earlier in this thread, I believe that my suggestion is an
accurate portrayal of the current status, otherwise please substitute
a more accurate description. (the subtext here: I am not an ASF
Director stepping in and demanding change, so please don't take
anything I say as an edict, I'm simply participating in the
conversation).
Longer term, this may very well be "Apache CloudStack" in the same
sense that the github whimsy repository is "Apache Whimsy". Or the
code could end up in a different place, like the apache-cloudstack
organization I suggested previously.
- Sam Ruby
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 18, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'm more concerned that the page is indistinguishable from a fork, and
> gives no indication of official status. That may be OK for a work in
> progress, but isn't ideal as a final solution. I'll share that I've
> heard (second and third hand) reports of people who only have heard of
> there being an "external fork", and have drawn incorrect conclusions
> from that. I think we need to be careful about how this is explained,
> as perceptions matter.
I have updated the organization description and added our website and dev@ address.
>
> By contrast, if you go to:
>
> https://github.com/apache/whimsy
>
> What you will see in place of "Mirror of xxx" is "Apache Whimsy". I
> grant you that it is a small thing,
We can easily change “Mirror of Apache CloudStack” to “Apache CloudStack”.
But I think lots of people will get upset as it will really mean that this is a move away from ASF infra.
Or maybe I missing your point.
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
FYI, I am supportive of the below as well and willing to help where
I can.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: <sa...@gmail.com> on behalf of Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 at 10:52 AM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> I think we are on the same page. I think we just need to start ironing
>>out
>> the actual logistical and technical details for how to move forward.
>
>+1
>
>- Sam Ruby
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com> wrote:
>
> I think we are on the same page. I think we just need to start ironing out
> the actual logistical and technical details for how to move forward.
+1
- Sam Ruby
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
We can see if we can get the 'apache-cloudstack' org on github if that is
preferred. No reason not to try...
What is currently at 'cloudstack/cloudstack' is NOT what we are proposing
going forward. This is currently an actual fork which was put in place
simply for the purpose of testing. We would be deleting that repository
and ideally moving the 'apache/cloudstack' to the current
'cloudstack/cloudstack' repo location (or 'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack' if
we get that org). I understand that the current fork at
'cloudstack/cloudstack' is probably adding some confusion to this
conversation.
I think we are on the same page. I think we just need to start ironing out
the actual logistical and technical details for how to move forward.
Cheers,
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Sam. Thank you very much for joining the conversation. We look
> forward
> > to working with you and appreciate your guidance on the matter.
> >
> > Just a quick note regarding my suggestion and the 'perception' concern
> you
> > raised. I am actually proposing that we do an ownership transfer of the
> > 'apache/cloudstack' repo to the 'cloudstack/cloudstack' repo. This means
> > that it will not be a fork of 'apache/cloudstack' because if you tried to
> > access that repo it would redirect to 'cloudstack/cloudstack', it will
> only
> > show the "Mirror of Apache CloudStack".
> >
> > Other benefits of this is that all the PRs (180+) will automatically be
> > moved to the 'cloudstack/cloudstack' repo making it easier for everyone
> > involved to understand where people are expected to open PRs.
>
> I may have been unclear. I think we are talking about two separate things.
>
> Regarding the "organization" (the first cloudstack in
> cloudstack/cloudstack), if there is a technical means to grant you the
> access you should have to control your repository(-ies), then staying
> in apache would arguably be better; but so far that avenue has been
> explored and looks to be a dead end. So moving to a separate
> organization makes sense. I think I would prefer that organization to
> be apache-cloudstack for reasons that I am about to get to, but I'm
> not stuck on that.
>
> I'm more concerned that the page is indistinguishable from a fork, and
> gives no indication of official status. That may be OK for a work in
> progress, but isn't ideal as a final solution. I'll share that I've
> heard (second and third hand) reports of people who only have heard of
> there being an "external fork", and have drawn incorrect conclusions
> from that. I think we need to be careful about how this is explained,
> as perceptions matter.
>
> By contrast, if you go to:
>
> https://github.com/apache/whimsy
>
> What you will see in place of "Mirror of xxx" is "Apache Whimsy". I
> grant you that it is a small thing, and there is technically nothing
> wrong with what is there now; but I claim that we can and should do
> better. From a perception perspective, it is the difference between
> individuals on the CloudStack PMC leaving the ASF, and the ASF
> expanding support for repositories hosted on GitHub. I'd like to
> pursue the latter, and if there are any obstacles (technical or
> otherwise) would like help flatten those issues.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > I will review what is being done with Whimsy to get a better idea how
> that
> > project is being handled.
> >
> > Thanks again for joining this conversation...
> >
> > *Will STEVENS*
> > Lead Developer
> >
> > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> > w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
> >>> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
> >>>
> >>> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
> >>> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality. The ASF does not have
> >>> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
> >>> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
> >>> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable
> with.
> >>>
> >>> What if we did the following:
> >>> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community
> have
> >>> 'owner' role representation.
> >>> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the
> cloudstack/cloudstack
> >>> repo. This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
> >>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
> >>> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
> >>> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to
> establish
> >>> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack
> >>> project
> >>> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
> >>> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
> >>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it. There are probably
> >>> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure
> everything
> >>> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
> >>> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute
> as a
> >>> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there
> will
> >>> be no segmentation of the community.
> >>> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF
> project,
> >>> so
> >>> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
> >>> "fork".
> >>>
> >>> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure
> there
> >>> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
> >>> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
> >>> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
> >>> direction.
> >>>
> >>> What do you all think?
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I'm pleased to see this being discussed on the dev list; and I'm ashamed
> >> that the board hasn't been more responsive. Suffice it to say that this
> >> issue now has the board's attention.
> >>
> >> On one hand, I'm a bit concerned that things are moving too quickly; and
> >> on the other hand I feel that it is time to rip the bandage off. So I
> >> would like to simultaneously encourage you (collectively) to think
> further
> >> outside of the box, and yet not be too impatient despite the previous
> lack
> >> of response. I'm the one that pushed through the approval of the Whimsy
> >> experiment, and I'm willing to help here.
> >>
> >> What would you be able to do if the git-dual experiment were expanded to
> >> CloudStack that you couldn't do with the proposal above? I suggest that
> >> you take full advantage of the fact that people are now listening.
> >>
> >> Be aware that perception matters. If you go to
> >> https://github.com/cloudstack/cloudstack, you will see in small print
> >> "forked from apache/cloudstack" and then in slightly larger font
> "Mirror of
> >> Apache Cloudstack". There should be an edit link on the latter for the
> >> owners of the organization, I'd like to discuss what should be there.
> >>
> >> I personally believe that the ASF has a demonstrable interest in being
> >> able to establish provenance, but I don't believe that taking over
> control
> >> of the ability of projects to set up Travis and other integrations is a
> >> necessary consequence of that. But overall I agree that if granularity
> of
> >> control for a single GitHub organization is an issue, then having
> multiple
> >> GitHub organizations needs to be explored as an option.
> >>
> >> How can I help? I'd like to bring this proposal back to the board for
> >> wider review so that nothing important is missed. If there are issues
> that
> >> come up, I will help flatten them.
> >>
> >> - Sam Ruby
> >>
>
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com> wrote:
> Hi Sam. Thank you very much for joining the conversation. We look forward
> to working with you and appreciate your guidance on the matter.
>
> Just a quick note regarding my suggestion and the 'perception' concern you
> raised. I am actually proposing that we do an ownership transfer of the
> 'apache/cloudstack' repo to the 'cloudstack/cloudstack' repo. This means
> that it will not be a fork of 'apache/cloudstack' because if you tried to
> access that repo it would redirect to 'cloudstack/cloudstack', it will only
> show the "Mirror of Apache CloudStack".
>
> Other benefits of this is that all the PRs (180+) will automatically be
> moved to the 'cloudstack/cloudstack' repo making it easier for everyone
> involved to understand where people are expected to open PRs.
I may have been unclear. I think we are talking about two separate things.
Regarding the "organization" (the first cloudstack in
cloudstack/cloudstack), if there is a technical means to grant you the
access you should have to control your repository(-ies), then staying
in apache would arguably be better; but so far that avenue has been
explored and looks to be a dead end. So moving to a separate
organization makes sense. I think I would prefer that organization to
be apache-cloudstack for reasons that I am about to get to, but I'm
not stuck on that.
I'm more concerned that the page is indistinguishable from a fork, and
gives no indication of official status. That may be OK for a work in
progress, but isn't ideal as a final solution. I'll share that I've
heard (second and third hand) reports of people who only have heard of
there being an "external fork", and have drawn incorrect conclusions
from that. I think we need to be careful about how this is explained,
as perceptions matter.
By contrast, if you go to:
https://github.com/apache/whimsy
What you will see in place of "Mirror of xxx" is "Apache Whimsy". I
grant you that it is a small thing, and there is technically nothing
wrong with what is there now; but I claim that we can and should do
better. From a perception perspective, it is the difference between
individuals on the CloudStack PMC leaving the ASF, and the ASF
expanding support for repositories hosted on GitHub. I'd like to
pursue the latter, and if there are any obstacles (technical or
otherwise) would like help flatten those issues.
- Sam Ruby
> I will review what is being done with Whimsy to get a better idea how that
> project is being handled.
>
> Thanks again for joining this conversation...
>
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
>
> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
>>> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
>>>
>>> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
>>> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality. The ASF does not have
>>> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
>>> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
>>> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.
>>>
>>> What if we did the following:
>>> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have
>>> 'owner' role representation.
>>> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
>>> repo. This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
>>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
>>> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
>>> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish
>>> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack
>>> project
>>> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
>>> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
>>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it. There are probably
>>> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything
>>> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
>>> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a
>>> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will
>>> be no segmentation of the community.
>>> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project,
>>> so
>>> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
>>> "fork".
>>>
>>> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
>>> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
>>> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
>>> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
>>> direction.
>>>
>>> What do you all think?
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I'm pleased to see this being discussed on the dev list; and I'm ashamed
>> that the board hasn't been more responsive. Suffice it to say that this
>> issue now has the board's attention.
>>
>> On one hand, I'm a bit concerned that things are moving too quickly; and
>> on the other hand I feel that it is time to rip the bandage off. So I
>> would like to simultaneously encourage you (collectively) to think further
>> outside of the box, and yet not be too impatient despite the previous lack
>> of response. I'm the one that pushed through the approval of the Whimsy
>> experiment, and I'm willing to help here.
>>
>> What would you be able to do if the git-dual experiment were expanded to
>> CloudStack that you couldn't do with the proposal above? I suggest that
>> you take full advantage of the fact that people are now listening.
>>
>> Be aware that perception matters. If you go to
>> https://github.com/cloudstack/cloudstack, you will see in small print
>> "forked from apache/cloudstack" and then in slightly larger font "Mirror of
>> Apache Cloudstack". There should be an edit link on the latter for the
>> owners of the organization, I'd like to discuss what should be there.
>>
>> I personally believe that the ASF has a demonstrable interest in being
>> able to establish provenance, but I don't believe that taking over control
>> of the ability of projects to set up Travis and other integrations is a
>> necessary consequence of that. But overall I agree that if granularity of
>> control for a single GitHub organization is an issue, then having multiple
>> GitHub organizations needs to be explored as an option.
>>
>> How can I help? I'd like to bring this proposal back to the board for
>> wider review so that nothing important is missed. If there are issues that
>> come up, I will help flatten them.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>.
Hi Sam. Thank you very much for joining the conversation. We look forward
to working with you and appreciate your guidance on the matter.
Just a quick note regarding my suggestion and the 'perception' concern you
raised. I am actually proposing that we do an ownership transfer of the
'apache/cloudstack' repo to the 'cloudstack/cloudstack' repo. This means
that it will not be a fork of 'apache/cloudstack' because if you tried to
access that repo it would redirect to 'cloudstack/cloudstack', it will only
show the "Mirror of Apache CloudStack".
Other benefits of this is that all the PRs (180+) will automatically be
moved to the 'cloudstack/cloudstack' repo making it easier for everyone
involved to understand where people are expected to open PRs.
I will review what is being done with Whimsy to get a better idea how that
project is being handled.
Thanks again for joining this conversation...
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
>> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
>>
>> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
>> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality. The ASF does not have
>> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
>> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
>> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.
>>
>> What if we did the following:
>> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have
>> 'owner' role representation.
>> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
>> repo. This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
>> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
>> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish
>> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack
>> project
>> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
>> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it. There are probably
>> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything
>> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
>> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a
>> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will
>> be no segmentation of the community.
>> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project,
>> so
>> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
>> "fork".
>>
>> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
>> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
>> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
>> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
>> direction.
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>
> +1
>
> I'm pleased to see this being discussed on the dev list; and I'm ashamed
> that the board hasn't been more responsive. Suffice it to say that this
> issue now has the board's attention.
>
> On one hand, I'm a bit concerned that things are moving too quickly; and
> on the other hand I feel that it is time to rip the bandage off. So I
> would like to simultaneously encourage you (collectively) to think further
> outside of the box, and yet not be too impatient despite the previous lack
> of response. I'm the one that pushed through the approval of the Whimsy
> experiment, and I'm willing to help here.
>
> What would you be able to do if the git-dual experiment were expanded to
> CloudStack that you couldn't do with the proposal above? I suggest that
> you take full advantage of the fact that people are now listening.
>
> Be aware that perception matters. If you go to
> https://github.com/cloudstack/cloudstack, you will see in small print
> "forked from apache/cloudstack" and then in slightly larger font "Mirror of
> Apache Cloudstack". There should be an edit link on the latter for the
> owners of the organization, I'd like to discuss what should be there.
>
> I personally believe that the ASF has a demonstrable interest in being
> able to establish provenance, but I don't believe that taking over control
> of the ability of projects to set up Travis and other integrations is a
> necessary consequence of that. But overall I agree that if granularity of
> control for a single GitHub organization is an issue, then having multiple
> GitHub organizations needs to be explored as an option.
>
> How can I help? I'd like to bring this proposal back to the board for
> wider review so that nothing important is missed. If there are issues that
> come up, I will help flatten them.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:36 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What would you be able to do if the git-dual experiment were expanded to CloudStack that you couldn't do with the proposal above? I suggest that you take full advantage of the fact that people are now listening.
>
> Thanks for chiming in Sam,
>
> Could you give us a summary of the Whimsy experiment ? (keeping in mind that most folks on dev@ are not members, did not listen on board@ ML or did not dig through ML archives).
>
> -What are you doing ?
> -For what reasons ?
> -Why is it a challenge for ASF ?
I suggest that the answers to all three can be found here:
https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Discussion_Items.html#minutes_2015_11_18
Updates can be found in the whimsy and infra reports:
https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Whimsy.html
https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Infrastructure.html
These latter two are generally published on a one month delay; the
February update should be published by Monday.
If, after reading these items, you have specific questions post them
here, and I'll see that they get answered.
>> How can I help? I'd like to bring this proposal back to the board for wider review so that nothing important is missed. If there are issues that come up, I will help flatten them.
>
> Thanks for being open and offering to help.
> Indeed let’s figure this out.
Thanks!
- Sam Ruby
Re: External fork of Cloudstack
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
>
> What would you be able to do if the git-dual experiment were expanded to CloudStack that you couldn't do with the proposal above? I suggest that you take full advantage of the fact that people are now listening.
>
Thanks for chiming in Sam,
Could you give us a summary of the Whimsy experiment ? (keeping in mind that most folks on dev@ are not members, did not listen on board@ ML or did not dig through ML archives).
-What are you doing ?
-For what reasons ?
-Why is it a challenge for ASF ?
>
> How can I help? I'd like to bring this proposal back to the board for wider review so that nothing important is missed. If there are issues that come up, I will help flatten them.
>
Thanks for being open and offering to help.
Indeed let’s figure this out.