You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> on 2016/11/04 13:35:47 UTC
[DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Hi all
I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
- restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
code donated by IBM during incubation.
- added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
- added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
intends to transfer to ASF
- fixed some typos
With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent weeks, I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an incubating project over the course of next weeks.
Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become initial committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
WDYT ?
Regards
Felix
[1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi Edward
Absolutely. Thanks for adding yourself.
Regards
Felix
> Am 07.11.2016 um 21:11 schrieb Edward J. Yoon <ed...@apache.org>:
>
> Awesome. Let me in.
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
>>
>> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
>> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
>> code donated by IBM during incubation.
>> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
>> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
>> intends to transfer to ASF
>> - fixed some typos
>>
>> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent weeks, I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an incubating project over the course of next weeks.
>>
>> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become initial committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
>>
>> WDYT ?
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by "Edward J. Yoon" <ed...@apache.org>.
Awesome. Let me in.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
>
> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
> code donated by IBM during incubation.
> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
> intends to transfer to ASF
> - fixed some typos
>
> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent weeks, I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an incubating project over the course of next weeks.
>
> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become initial committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
--
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Perfect, already added to the wiki.
Thanks, Felix.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
wrote:
> Hi Sergio
>
> Pleased to meet you and thanks for offering to become a mentor. That helps.
>
> Feel free to add yourself to the proposal
>
> Thanks
> Felix
>
> Am 04.11.2016 um 15:57 schrieb Sergio Fernández <wikier@apache.org<mailto:
> wikier@apache.org>>:
>
> Hi Felix,
>
> most of the ASF project have successfully manage to keep using GitHub for
> PRs, having the master git repository in ASF-controlled infrastructure. In
> the end it doesn't represent that big break on the common workflows. But
> definitely something the podling could try to address during incubation.
>
> I'd be happy to jump-in the proposal and help as mentor.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com
> <ma...@adobe.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John
>
> My understanding is, that we are well aware of this concern, which others
> have mentioned as well.
>
> Also Greg noted in the proposal:
>
> gstein sez: the podling can only graduate within an approved repository
> system. The IPMC may have a differing opinion, but from an Infra
> perspective: the OpenWhisk podling can continue with their usage of a
> GitHub repository, but faces a clear obstacle: GitHub "as master [as
> allowed by the Foundation]" must be approved and working before the
> graduation, or they must migrate their primary to the Foundation's Git
> repository (at git-wip) before they graduate.
>
> I think this sounds like a good compromise to work on and the poddling
> intends to work actively with Infra to see that we can stay in GitHub. If
> that is not possible, we byte the bullet accordingly.
>
> In addition, also according to Greg:
>
> We require that anybody committing to a GitHub repository authenticates
> with BOTH: GitHub, and the ASF. No commits without that multiple
> authentication. (this is based on our current experiments with Whimsy and
> Traffic Server; same rules would apply to this podling)
>
> The original discussion took place after the initial submission, see [1]
>
> Does that help ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1c22a29b69e944ee725278aae05bd4
> 1dea80d10d0d204c26eb4cb24c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org<h
> ttp://3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org>%3E
>
> Am 04.11.2016 um 15:20 schrieb John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>>:
>
> I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo. This is
> still
> unresolved, as I understood it.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com
> <ma...@adobe.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
>
> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
> code donated by IBM during incubation.
> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
> intends to transfer to ASF
> - fixed some typos
>
> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent
> weeks,
> I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an
> incubating
> project over the course of next weeks.
>
> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become
> initial
> committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org<mailto:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org<mailto:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co<ma...@redlink.co>
> w: http://redlink.co<http://redlink.co/>
>
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi Sergio
Pleased to meet you and thanks for offering to become a mentor. That helps.
Feel free to add yourself to the proposal
Thanks
Felix
Am 04.11.2016 um 15:57 schrieb Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>>:
Hi Felix,
most of the ASF project have successfully manage to keep using GitHub for
PRs, having the master git repository in ASF-controlled infrastructure. In
the end it doesn't represent that big break on the common workflows. But
definitely something the podling could try to address during incubation.
I'd be happy to jump-in the proposal and help as mentor.
Cheers,
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>>
wrote:
Hi John
My understanding is, that we are well aware of this concern, which others
have mentioned as well.
Also Greg noted in the proposal:
gstein sez: the podling can only graduate within an approved repository
system. The IPMC may have a differing opinion, but from an Infra
perspective: the OpenWhisk podling can continue with their usage of a
GitHub repository, but faces a clear obstacle: GitHub "as master [as
allowed by the Foundation]" must be approved and working before the
graduation, or they must migrate their primary to the Foundation's Git
repository (at git-wip) before they graduate.
I think this sounds like a good compromise to work on and the poddling
intends to work actively with Infra to see that we can stay in GitHub. If
that is not possible, we byte the bullet accordingly.
In addition, also according to Greg:
We require that anybody committing to a GitHub repository authenticates
with BOTH: GitHub, and the ASF. No commits without that multiple
authentication. (this is based on our current experiments with Whimsy and
Traffic Server; same rules would apply to this podling)
The original discussion took place after the initial submission, see [1]
Does that help ?
Regards
Felix
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1c22a29b69e944ee725278aae05bd4
1dea80d10d0d204c26eb4cb24c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org<http://3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org>%3E
Am 04.11.2016 um 15:20 schrieb John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>>:
I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo. This is
still
unresolved, as I understood it.
John
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>>
wrote:
Hi all
I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
- restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
code donated by IBM during incubation.
- added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
- added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
intends to transfer to ASF
- fixed some typos
With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent
weeks,
I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an
incubating
project over the course of next weeks.
Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become
initial
committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
WDYT ?
Regards
Felix
[1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co<ma...@redlink.co>
w: http://redlink.co<http://redlink.co/>
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi Felix,
most of the ASF project have successfully manage to keep using GitHub for
PRs, having the master git repository in ASF-controlled infrastructure. In
the end it doesn't represent that big break on the common workflows. But
definitely something the podling could try to address during incubation.
I'd be happy to jump-in the proposal and help as mentor.
Cheers,
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
wrote:
> Hi John
>
> My understanding is, that we are well aware of this concern, which others
> have mentioned as well.
>
> Also Greg noted in the proposal:
>
> > gstein sez: the podling can only graduate within an approved repository
> system. The IPMC may have a differing opinion, but from an Infra
> perspective: the OpenWhisk podling can continue with their usage of a
> GitHub repository, but faces a clear obstacle: GitHub "as master [as
> allowed by the Foundation]" must be approved and working before the
> graduation, or they must migrate their primary to the Foundation's Git
> repository (at git-wip) before they graduate.
>
> I think this sounds like a good compromise to work on and the poddling
> intends to work actively with Infra to see that we can stay in GitHub. If
> that is not possible, we byte the bullet accordingly.
>
> In addition, also according to Greg:
>
> > We require that anybody committing to a GitHub repository authenticates
> with BOTH: GitHub, and the ASF. No commits without that multiple
> authentication. (this is based on our current experiments with Whimsy and
> Traffic Server; same rules would apply to this podling)
>
> The original discussion took place after the initial submission, see [1]
>
> Does that help ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1c22a29b69e944ee725278aae05bd4
> 1dea80d10d0d204c26eb4cb24c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> > Am 04.11.2016 um 15:20 schrieb John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
> >
> > I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo. This is
> still
> > unresolved, as I understood it.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
> >>
> >> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
> >> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
> >> code donated by IBM during incubation.
> >> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
> >> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
> >> intends to transfer to ASF
> >> - fixed some typos
> >>
> >> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent
> weeks,
> >> I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an
> incubating
> >> project over the course of next weeks.
> >>
> >> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become
> initial
> >> committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
> >>
> >> WDYT ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Felix
> >>
> >> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
>
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I spoke with Greg very briefly about the situation with OpenWhisk. He
pointed out a couple of things to me.
- He presented essentially an either/or situation to the podling,
essentially either you can stay on your existing and wait to graduate when
ASF can handle github as master, or use what the ASF can provide as of
now. At least this is how I understood it.
- github as master is on infra's radar, but it has no ETA at this point.
There are on going private discussions around it. As well as the git-dual
solution.
There's an interesting twist. It has to do with the distributed nature of
git. While searching through documents online, there's only one place that
mentions using an ASF managed repository as the "canonical" repository. I
mention this, mostly because in SVN and CVS days this was a non-issue, you
could check stuff out, but never have to worry about multiple copies
floating around.
Anyways, here's the doc from 4 years ago:
https://www.apache.org/dev/writable-git
I'll note that the release process docs make no such claim:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html
I suspect that this is a case of "the docs are out of date" and what's
there from 4 years ago is still true today. So at this point, we would
require a policy change (from my POV) to even review a release from a
podling that was not hosted by ASF.
John
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 5:44 PM Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I second John, about Github uses.
>
> The statement "As a community we would like to keep the master repository
> as well as issue tracking on GitHub
> <https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GitHub>" at currently stand is a no-no
> and putting in proposal would make it as goal which at this time not an
> option in ASF infra.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:29 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John
> > >
> > > My understanding is, that we are well aware of this concern, which
> others
> > > have mentioned as well.
> > >
> > > Also Greg noted in the proposal:
> > >
> > > > gstein sez: the podling can only graduate within an approved
> repository
> > > system. The IPMC may have a differing opinion, but from an Infra
> > > perspective: the OpenWhisk podling can continue with their usage of a
> > > GitHub repository, but faces a clear obstacle: GitHub "as master [as
> > > allowed by the Foundation]" must be approved and working before the
> > > graduation, or they must migrate their primary to the Foundation's Git
> > > repository (at git-wip) before they graduate.
> > >
> >
> > I would like to get other IPMC members to weigh in on this comment,
> before
> > I comment. Greg is the Infra Admin, he is an IPMC member but that's
> > obligatory. He is explicitly stating that the IPMC may have an opinion
> > other than his own.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I think this sounds like a good compromise to work on and the poddling
> > > intends to work actively with Infra to see that we can stay in GitHub.
> If
> > > that is not possible, we byte the bullet accordingly.
> > >
> > > In addition, also according to Greg:
> > >
> > > > We require that anybody committing to a GitHub repository
> authenticates
> > > with BOTH: GitHub, and the ASF. No commits without that multiple
> > > authentication. (this is based on our current experiments with Whimsy
> and
> > > Traffic Server; same rules would apply to this podling)
> > >
> > > The original discussion took place after the initial submission, see
> [1]
> > >
> > > Does that help ?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Felix
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1c22a29b69e944ee725278aae05bd4
> > 1dea80d10d0d204c26eb4cb24c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > >
> > > > Am 04.11.2016 um 15:20 schrieb John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org
> >:
> > > >
> > > > I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo. This is
> > > still
> > > > unresolved, as I understood it.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all
> > > >>
> > > >> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
> > > >>
> > > >> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
> > > >> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
> > > >> code donated by IBM during incubation.
> > > >> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
> > > >> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
> > > >> intends to transfer to ASF
> > > >> - fixed some typos
> > > >>
> > > >> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent
> > > weeks,
> > > >> I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an
> > > incubating
> > > >> project over the course of next weeks.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become
> > > initial
> > > >> committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
> > > >>
> > > >> WDYT ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >> Felix
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
> > > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Ah, I didnt know ASF infra is ok to let Github as main source repo for a
podling.
I stand corrected.
- Henry
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I second John, about Github uses.
> >
> > The statement "As a community we would like to keep the master repository
> > as well as issue tracking on GitHub
> > <https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GitHub>" at currently stand is a
> no-no
> > and putting in proposal would make it as goal which at this time not an
> > option in ASF infra.
> >
>
> As a *podling*, their use of GitHub is an acceptable option within ASF
> Infra. [1]
>
> As a TLP, it is NOT.
>
> Thus, when they want to graduate: either Infra has ready to give any TLP
> the option of using GitHub as their primary focal point of development (and
> OpenWhisk gets to use that option) ... or OpenWhisk must move to the
> ASF-supported, non-GitHub option.
>
> Infra is hoping to provide the GitHub option, but we have no date. We have
> development to do, we have risks that we can't do what is needed, etc etc.
> If OpenWhisk reaches a discussion about graduation, and Infra has not
> completed such work, then the OpenWhisk community will have a decision on
> wait or shift their development focal point.
>
> Cheers,
> Greg Stein
> Infrastructure Administrator, ASF
>
> [1] only OpenWhisk. at this time, no other podling is approved for such
> deployment, from an Infra standpoint. ... and as John notes: IPMC is
> ultimately in charge of how podlings operate. I merely state that Infra
> will support this concrete case, which I believe is a good experiment.
> there are things to learn about whether this will work/not for podlings.
> (eg. normally IPMC members get to randomly commit to podlings, how is that
> done w.r.t GitHub? do we get all commit emails? issue emails? etc)
>
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I second John, about Github uses.
>
> The statement "As a community we would like to keep the master repository
> as well as issue tracking on GitHub
> <https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GitHub>" at currently stand is a no-no
> and putting in proposal would make it as goal which at this time not an
> option in ASF infra.
>
As a *podling*, their use of GitHub is an acceptable option within ASF
Infra. [1]
As a TLP, it is NOT.
Thus, when they want to graduate: either Infra has ready to give any TLP
the option of using GitHub as their primary focal point of development (and
OpenWhisk gets to use that option) ... or OpenWhisk must move to the
ASF-supported, non-GitHub option.
Infra is hoping to provide the GitHub option, but we have no date. We have
development to do, we have risks that we can't do what is needed, etc etc.
If OpenWhisk reaches a discussion about graduation, and Infra has not
completed such work, then the OpenWhisk community will have a decision on
wait or shift their development focal point.
Cheers,
Greg Stein
Infrastructure Administrator, ASF
[1] only OpenWhisk. at this time, no other podling is approved for such
deployment, from an Infra standpoint. ... and as John notes: IPMC is
ultimately in charge of how podlings operate. I merely state that Infra
will support this concrete case, which I believe is a good experiment.
there are things to learn about whether this will work/not for podlings.
(eg. normally IPMC members get to randomly commit to podlings, how is that
done w.r.t GitHub? do we get all commit emails? issue emails? etc)
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
I second John, about Github uses.
The statement "As a community we would like to keep the master repository
as well as issue tracking on GitHub
<https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GitHub>" at currently stand is a no-no
and putting in proposal would make it as goal which at this time not an
option in ASF infra.
- Henry
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:29 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi John
> >
> > My understanding is, that we are well aware of this concern, which others
> > have mentioned as well.
> >
> > Also Greg noted in the proposal:
> >
> > > gstein sez: the podling can only graduate within an approved repository
> > system. The IPMC may have a differing opinion, but from an Infra
> > perspective: the OpenWhisk podling can continue with their usage of a
> > GitHub repository, but faces a clear obstacle: GitHub "as master [as
> > allowed by the Foundation]" must be approved and working before the
> > graduation, or they must migrate their primary to the Foundation's Git
> > repository (at git-wip) before they graduate.
> >
>
> I would like to get other IPMC members to weigh in on this comment, before
> I comment. Greg is the Infra Admin, he is an IPMC member but that's
> obligatory. He is explicitly stating that the IPMC may have an opinion
> other than his own.
>
>
> >
> > I think this sounds like a good compromise to work on and the poddling
> > intends to work actively with Infra to see that we can stay in GitHub. If
> > that is not possible, we byte the bullet accordingly.
> >
> > In addition, also according to Greg:
> >
> > > We require that anybody committing to a GitHub repository authenticates
> > with BOTH: GitHub, and the ASF. No commits without that multiple
> > authentication. (this is based on our current experiments with Whimsy and
> > Traffic Server; same rules would apply to this podling)
> >
> > The original discussion took place after the initial submission, see [1]
> >
> > Does that help ?
> >
> > Regards
> > Felix
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1c22a29b69e944ee725278aae05bd4
> 1dea80d10d0d204c26eb4cb24c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> >
> > > Am 04.11.2016 um 15:20 schrieb John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo. This is
> > still
> > > unresolved, as I understood it.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all
> > >>
> > >> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
> > >>
> > >> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
> > >> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
> > >> code donated by IBM during incubation.
> > >> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
> > >> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
> > >> intends to transfer to ASF
> > >> - fixed some typos
> > >>
> > >> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent
> > weeks,
> > >> I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an
> > incubating
> > >> project over the course of next weeks.
> > >>
> > >> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become
> > initial
> > >> committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
> > >>
> > >> WDYT ?
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> Felix
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
wrote:
> Hi John
>
> My understanding is, that we are well aware of this concern, which others
> have mentioned as well.
>
> Also Greg noted in the proposal:
>
> > gstein sez: the podling can only graduate within an approved repository
> system. The IPMC may have a differing opinion, but from an Infra
> perspective: the OpenWhisk podling can continue with their usage of a
> GitHub repository, but faces a clear obstacle: GitHub "as master [as
> allowed by the Foundation]" must be approved and working before the
> graduation, or they must migrate their primary to the Foundation's Git
> repository (at git-wip) before they graduate.
>
I would like to get other IPMC members to weigh in on this comment, before
I comment. Greg is the Infra Admin, he is an IPMC member but that's
obligatory. He is explicitly stating that the IPMC may have an opinion
other than his own.
>
> I think this sounds like a good compromise to work on and the poddling
> intends to work actively with Infra to see that we can stay in GitHub. If
> that is not possible, we byte the bullet accordingly.
>
> In addition, also according to Greg:
>
> > We require that anybody committing to a GitHub repository authenticates
> with BOTH: GitHub, and the ASF. No commits without that multiple
> authentication. (this is based on our current experiments with Whimsy and
> Traffic Server; same rules would apply to this podling)
>
> The original discussion took place after the initial submission, see [1]
>
> Does that help ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1c22a29b69e944ee725278aae05bd41dea80d10d0d204c26eb4cb24c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> > Am 04.11.2016 um 15:20 schrieb John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
> >
> > I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo. This is
> still
> > unresolved, as I understood it.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
> >>
> >> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
> >> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
> >> code donated by IBM during incubation.
> >> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
> >> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
> >> intends to transfer to ASF
> >> - fixed some typos
> >>
> >> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent
> weeks,
> >> I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an
> incubating
> >> project over the course of next weeks.
> >>
> >> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become
> initial
> >> committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
> >>
> >> WDYT ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Felix
> >>
> >> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi John
My understanding is, that we are well aware of this concern, which others have mentioned as well.
Also Greg noted in the proposal:
> gstein sez: the podling can only graduate within an approved repository system. The IPMC may have a differing opinion, but from an Infra perspective: the OpenWhisk podling can continue with their usage of a GitHub repository, but faces a clear obstacle: GitHub "as master [as allowed by the Foundation]" must be approved and working before the graduation, or they must migrate their primary to the Foundation's Git repository (at git-wip) before they graduate.
I think this sounds like a good compromise to work on and the poddling intends to work actively with Infra to see that we can stay in GitHub. If that is not possible, we byte the bullet accordingly.
In addition, also according to Greg:
> We require that anybody committing to a GitHub repository authenticates with BOTH: GitHub, and the ASF. No commits without that multiple authentication. (this is based on our current experiments with Whimsy and Traffic Server; same rules would apply to this podling)
The original discussion took place after the initial submission, see [1]
Does that help ?
Regards
Felix
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1c22a29b69e944ee725278aae05bd41dea80d10d0d204c26eb4cb24c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> Am 04.11.2016 um 15:20 schrieb John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>:
>
> I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo. This is still
> unresolved, as I understood it.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
>>
>> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
>> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
>> code donated by IBM during incubation.
>> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
>> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
>> intends to transfer to ASF
>> - fixed some typos
>>
>> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent weeks,
>> I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an incubating
>> project over the course of next weeks.
>>
>> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become initial
>> committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
>>
>> WDYT ?
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo. This is still
unresolved, as I understood it.
John
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
>
> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
> that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
> code donated by IBM during incubation.
> - added a note on the API Gateway’s dependency on OpenSSL
> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
> intends to transfer to ASF
> - fixed some typos
>
> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent weeks,
> I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an incubating
> project over the course of next weeks.
>
> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become initial
> committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>