[VOTE] Re: Buildstream.apache.org

[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: [VOTE] Re: Buildstream.apache.org

[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

[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

[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