You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> on 2016/01/03 12:25:26 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger consensus.
We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to its full potential.
The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and still maintain strong provenance of commits to keep the high quality and provenance standards of ASF code.
If we get consensus we can request to the board to be part of the “trial” and move to Github.
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache organisation
>> right? one that we can not merge to.
>>
>
> Yes , that’s how I created all the docs repo and the repos for ec2stack and gstack.
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW
>>>
>>> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github at:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8
>>>
>>> Not sure if the link will work, but it’s available through issues.
>>>
>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Seb
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, I
>>> would like to re-open this discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and
>>> 4.7.0 we need to think about the next steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To me Git and GitHub has become an essential tool to any software
>>> development, not using it to its full potential is hurting us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as an example I would like to point you to [2], this a PR I made
>>> to Kubernetes (a container orchestrator), it literally added 14 characters
>>> in a json file.
>>>>>> This was really a very minor change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The PR automatically triggered 3 bots which created 7 labels, it ran
>>> end to end testss, Jenkins jobs and triggered third part builds.
>>>>>> It was automatically merged.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am fine moving to github.
>>>>>
>>>>> But IMHO the git hosting is not the problem, the problem is how far do
>>>>> we trust the current tests and how we can them improve.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moving to github doesn't improve testing. Doing manual tests is okay and
>>>>> hard work, it does not speed up things.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need fully automated unit _and_ integration tests that we trust. I do
>>>>> not trust in mocking and simulating infrastructure.
>>>>>
>>>>> We discovered most of the major problems running cloudstack on real
>>>>> hardware in real world scenarios. Race conditions, unexpected VR
>>>>> reboots, VMs not getting IPs from DHCP, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rating complexity of changes: easy_fix, minor_change, major_change
>>>>>
>>>>> Running tests according complexity:
>>>>>
>>>>> - easy_fix: just merge it.
>>>>> - minor_change: unit and simulator test passed
>>>>> - major_change: the full blown integration testing
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO we should work on solid testing and development is fun, merging a
>>>>> click and releasing a breath.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>
>>>> Fully agree
>>>>
>>>> I do think moving to github would allow us to run tests on real systems
>>> more easily.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> René
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:35 AM, John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:
> All,
> [snip]
> 2. Attachments: A vital part of resolving issues are screenshots and logs.
> While people can gist or imgur this information, it is cumbersome. Many of
> these systems also purge information after some period of time — removing
> important information from long lived, unresolved ticket and/or reducing
> their historical value. I don’t know about others, but I search through
> ticket history a few times a week to understand the history of issues and
> when they have been fixed. I often look at the attachments to determine
> whether or not the issue I am debugging matches the ticket.
>
Just a FYI, GitHub issues does support attachments. It is probably not as
elegant as in other solutions, but it is there.
--
Erik
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>.
All,
I am +1 to make Github the “repo of record” for the record. I believe it has been suggested to keep a secondary, read-only mirror of the repo on ASF which seems like a prudent, low effort backup.
Personally, I think both Confluence and Github are fairly poor wiki implementations. Therefore, I am +0 on moving the wiki to Github so long as we can maintain the content that has already been created. While some of the content in the existing wiki is a bit out of date, I think it would be a mistake to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. So long as moving the wiki to Github doesn’t mean starting over, it makes little difference to me if it is Confluence or Github.
I am no fan of JIRA. I think it is clunky, bloated, and overly complicated — particularly in its default configuration. It also requires additional registration and approval for users to interact with the project which I deeply dislike. However, as much as I dislike JIRA, my experience with Github issues has been worse. Where JIRA attempts to do too much, Github issues simply can’t do many things. In particular, we need the following features in a ticketing system which are not currently provided by Github Issues:
1. Private Tickets: We must have an avenue for security researchers, developers, and users to responsibly inform the project about security issues and track resolution. This process is necessarily confined to the reporter and security team until a resolution is found.
2. Attachments: A vital part of resolving issues are screenshots and logs. While people can gist or imgur this information, it is cumbersome. Many of these systems also purge information after some period of time — removing important information from long lived, unresolved ticket and/or reducing their historical value. I don’t know about others, but I search through ticket history a few times a week to understand the history of issues and when they have been fixed. I often look at the attachments to determine whether or not the issue I am debugging matches the ticket.
3. History Import: While less important than the previous two items, a single source to comprehend history is very useful. Our current JIRA is a rich corpus of project’s previous problems and their resolutions. Splitting that corpus across two repositories would be a step backwards in my mind.
I would imagine there are additional gaps between JIRA and Github Issues functionality as Github Issues is an extremely simplistic ticking system. For these reasons, I am -1 on moving to Github Issues.
Thanks,
-John
>
[ShapeBlue]<http://www.shapeblue.com>
John Burwell
ShapeBlue
d: +44 (20) 3603 0542 | s: +1 (571) 403-2411 <tel:+44%20(20)%203603%200542%20|%20s:%20+1%20(571)%20403-2411>
e: john.burwell@shapeblue.com | t: <mailto:john.burwell@shapeblue.com%20|%20t:> | w: www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK
[cid:image7b7e2d.png@57e35166.4d8951a3]
Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
On Jan 3, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 3, 2016, at 4:28 PM, humbedooh@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-01-03 12:25, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger consensus.
>>>
>>> We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
>>>
>>> Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to its full potential.
>>>
>>> The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and still maintain strong provenance of commits to keep the high quality and provenance standards of ASF code.
>>>
>>> If we get consensus we can request to the board to be part of the “trial†and move to Github.
>>
>> Sorry to burst any bubbles here, but there is no trial you can join at the moment.
>> We are, as always, exploring new ways of having people collaborate and contribute, but at present, there are no opt-in trials for GitHub.
>>
>> What the future holds remains to be seen, but for now...sorry, but nope.
>> If/when such an option becomes available, we will of course notify the various projects about this opportunity.
>>
>
> ok thanks for the clarification.
>
> However let’s keep the DISCUSS going so we know what we want. With that in hand we will have a thread to point the board to if we want to make a request.
>
>> With regards,
>> Daniel on behalf of Infrastructure.
>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache organisation
>>>>> right? one that we can not merge to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes , that’s how I created all the docs repo and the repos for ec2stack and gstack.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure if the link will work, but it’s available through issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Seb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, I
>>>>>> would like to re-open this discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and
>>>>>> 4.7.0 we need to think about the next steps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To me Git and GitHub has become an essential tool to any software
>>>>>> development, not using it to its full potential is hurting us.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just as an example I would like to point you to [2], this a PR I made
>>>>>> to Kubernetes (a container orchestrator), it literally added 14 characters
>>>>>> in a json file.
>>>>>>>>> This was really a very minor change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The PR automatically triggered 3 bots which created 7 labels, it ran
>>>>>> end to end testss, Jenkins jobs and triggered third part builds.
>>>>>>>>> It was automatically merged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am fine moving to github.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But IMHO the git hosting is not the problem, the problem is how far do
>>>>>>>> we trust the current tests and how we can them improve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moving to github doesn't improve testing. Doing manual tests is okay and
>>>>>>>> hard work, it does not speed up things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need fully automated unit _and_ integration tests that we trust. I do
>>>>>>>> not trust in mocking and simulating infrastructure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We discovered most of the major problems running cloudstack on real
>>>>>>>> hardware in real world scenarios. Race conditions, unexpected VR
>>>>>>>> reboots, VMs not getting IPs from DHCP, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rating complexity of changes: easy_fix, minor_change, major_change
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Running tests according complexity:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - easy_fix: just merge it.
>>>>>>>> - minor_change: unit and simulator test passed
>>>>>>>> - major_change: the full blown integration testing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMHO we should work on solid testing and development is fun, merging a
>>>>>>>> click and releasing a breath.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fully agree
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do think moving to github would allow us to run tests on real systems
>>>>>> more easily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> René
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ------
>> Sent via Pony Mail for dev@cloudstack.apache.org.
>> View this email online at:
>> https://pony-poc.apache.org/list.html?dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
> On Jan 3, 2016, at 4:28 PM, humbedooh@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2016-01-03 12:25, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger consensus.
>>
>> We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
>>
>> Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to its full potential.
>>
>> The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and still maintain strong provenance of commits to keep the high quality and provenance standards of ASF code.
>>
>> If we get consensus we can request to the board to be part of the âtrialâ and move to Github.
>
> Sorry to burst any bubbles here, but there is no trial you can join at the moment.
> We are, as always, exploring new ways of having people collaborate and contribute, but at present, there are no opt-in trials for GitHub.
>
> What the future holds remains to be seen, but for now...sorry, but nope.
> If/when such an option becomes available, we will of course notify the various projects about this opportunity.
>
ok thanks for the clarification.
However let’s keep the DISCUSS going so we know what we want. With that in hand we will have a thread to point the board to if we want to make a request.
> With regards,
> Daniel on behalf of Infrastructure.
>
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache organisation
>>>> right? one that we can not merge to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes , thatâs how I created all the docs repo and the repos for ec2stack and gstack.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTW
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github at:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure if the link will work, but itâs available through issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Seb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, I
>>>>> would like to re-open this discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and
>>>>> 4.7.0 we need to think about the next steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me Git and GitHub has become an essential tool to any software
>>>>> development, not using it to its full potential is hurting us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just as an example I would like to point you to [2], this a PR I made
>>>>> to Kubernetes (a container orchestrator), it literally added 14 characters
>>>>> in a json file.
>>>>>>>> This was really a very minor change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The PR automatically triggered 3 bots which created 7 labels, it ran
>>>>> end to end testss, Jenkins jobs and triggered third part builds.
>>>>>>>> It was automatically merged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am fine moving to github.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But IMHO the git hosting is not the problem, the problem is how far do
>>>>>>> we trust the current tests and how we can them improve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moving to github doesn't improve testing. Doing manual tests is okay and
>>>>>>> hard work, it does not speed up things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need fully automated unit _and_ integration tests that we trust. I do
>>>>>>> not trust in mocking and simulating infrastructure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We discovered most of the major problems running cloudstack on real
>>>>>>> hardware in real world scenarios. Race conditions, unexpected VR
>>>>>>> reboots, VMs not getting IPs from DHCP, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rating complexity of changes: easy_fix, minor_change, major_change
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Running tests according complexity:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - easy_fix: just merge it.
>>>>>>> - minor_change: unit and simulator test passed
>>>>>>> - major_change: the full blown integration testing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO we should work on solid testing and development is fun, merging a
>>>>>>> click and releasing a breath.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fully agree
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do think moving to github would allow us to run tests on real systems
>>>>> more easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> René
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>
>>
>>
> ------
> Sent via Pony Mail for dev@cloudstack.apache.org.
> View this email online at:
> https://pony-poc.apache.org/list.html?dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by "humbedooh@gmail.com" <hu...@gmail.com>.
On 2016-01-03 12:25, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger consensus.
>
> We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
>
> Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to its full potential.
>
> The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and still maintain strong provenance of commits to keep the high quality and provenance standards of ASF code.
>
> If we get consensus we can request to the board to be part of the âtrialâ and move to Github.
Sorry to burst any bubbles here, but there is no trial you can join at the moment.
We are, as always, exploring new ways of having people collaborate and contribute, but at present, there are no opt-in trials for GitHub.
What the future holds remains to be seen, but for now...sorry, but nope.
If/when such an option becomes available, we will of course notify the various projects about this opportunity.
With regards,
Daniel on behalf of Infrastructure.
>
> > On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache organisation
> >> right? one that we can not merge to.
> >>
> >
> > Yes , thatâs how I created all the docs repo and the repos for ec2stack and gstack.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> BTW
> >>>
> >>> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github at:
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8
> >>>
> >>> Not sure if the link will work, but itâs available through issues.
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Seb
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, I
> >>> would like to re-open this discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and
> >>> 4.7.0 we need to think about the next steps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To me Git and GitHub has become an essential tool to any software
> >>> development, not using it to its full potential is hurting us.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just as an example I would like to point you to [2], this a PR I made
> >>> to Kubernetes (a container orchestrator), it literally added 14 characters
> >>> in a json file.
> >>>>>> This was really a very minor change.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The PR automatically triggered 3 bots which created 7 labels, it ran
> >>> end to end testss, Jenkins jobs and triggered third part builds.
> >>>>>> It was automatically merged.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am fine moving to github.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But IMHO the git hosting is not the problem, the problem is how far do
> >>>>> we trust the current tests and how we can them improve.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moving to github doesn't improve testing. Doing manual tests is okay and
> >>>>> hard work, it does not speed up things.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We need fully automated unit _and_ integration tests that we trust. I do
> >>>>> not trust in mocking and simulating infrastructure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We discovered most of the major problems running cloudstack on real
> >>>>> hardware in real world scenarios. Race conditions, unexpected VR
> >>>>> reboots, VMs not getting IPs from DHCP, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rating complexity of changes: easy_fix, minor_change, major_change
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Running tests according complexity:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - easy_fix: just merge it.
> >>>>> - minor_change: unit and simulator test passed
> >>>>> - major_change: the full blown integration testing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMHO we should work on solid testing and development is fun, merging a
> >>>>> click and releasing a breath.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just my 2 cents.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fully agree
> >>>>
> >>>> I do think moving to github would allow us to run tests on real systems
> >>> more easily.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> René
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daan
> >
>
>
------
Sent via Pony Mail for dev@cloudstack.apache.org.
View this email online at:
https://pony-poc.apache.org/list.html?dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Ok, nice to see we have in the open what possible problems are. That said
and as we are, my experience as RM leads me to say we should move sooner
rather then later. explenation of my not always 100% clear communication
methods: :+1:!!!
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11-01-16 10:56, sebgoa wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Sebastien
> >>>
> >>> On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> >>>> Part 3:
> >>>> ————
> >>>>
> >>>> To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub
> prevent us from building more productive CI workflow and makes the life of
> the RM more difficult (cannot use labels, cannot use issues, cannot
> configured triggers/hooks etc). ...
> >>>
> >>> Out of curiosity, it seems the main problem is that we are using the
> >>> apache account of github.
> >>
> >> indeed
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Why don't we create an own one?
> >>>
> >>> e.g. github.com/cloudstackdev
> >>>
> >>
> >> we do have github.com/cloudstack already
> >>
> >>> --> PR merge on github.com/cloudstackdev
> >>> --> hook to jenkins job pushing it to git http://git.apache.org
> >>> --> will be mirrored to https://github.com/apache/cloudstack
> >>>
> >>> Did I miss anything why this would not be possible?
> >>>
> >>
> >> this is exactly what "moving to github" would mean.
> >>
> >> if we agree to do this, we then need to work with infra and the board
> to make sure everything is ok in terms of provenance and that it does not
> "break" our ASF "commitment"
> >>
> >
> > We can always change the bylaws and make GPG keys for commits mandatory?
> > That way we can always prove who made the commit.
>
> I have tested this and participated in a test with another ASF member,
> apparently the board did not think that was enough.
>
> >
> >>> The only thing would be that we can not push to http://git.apache.org
> >>> directly anymore.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> René
>
>
--
Daan
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11-01-16 10:56, sebgoa wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sebastien
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>>> Part 3:
>>>> ————
>>>>
>>>> To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub prevent us from building more productive CI workflow and makes the life of the RM more difficult (cannot use labels, cannot use issues, cannot configured triggers/hooks etc). ...
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, it seems the main problem is that we are using the
>>> apache account of github.
>>
>> indeed
>>
>>>
>>> Why don't we create an own one?
>>>
>>> e.g. github.com/cloudstackdev
>>>
>>
>> we do have github.com/cloudstack already
>>
>>> --> PR merge on github.com/cloudstackdev
>>> --> hook to jenkins job pushing it to git http://git.apache.org
>>> --> will be mirrored to https://github.com/apache/cloudstack
>>>
>>> Did I miss anything why this would not be possible?
>>>
>>
>> this is exactly what "moving to github" would mean.
>>
>> if we agree to do this, we then need to work with infra and the board to make sure everything is ok in terms of provenance and that it does not "break" our ASF "commitment"
>>
>
> We can always change the bylaws and make GPG keys for commits mandatory?
> That way we can always prove who made the commit.
I have tested this and participated in a test with another ASF member, apparently the board did not think that was enough.
>
>>> The only thing would be that we can not push to http://git.apache.org
>>> directly anymore.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> René
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 11-01-16 10:56, sebgoa wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sebastien
>>
>> On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>> Part 3:
>>> ————
>>>
>>> To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub prevent us from building more productive CI workflow and makes the life of the RM more difficult (cannot use labels, cannot use issues, cannot configured triggers/hooks etc). ...
>>
>> Out of curiosity, it seems the main problem is that we are using the
>> apache account of github.
>
> indeed
>
>>
>> Why don't we create an own one?
>>
>> e.g. github.com/cloudstackdev
>>
>
> we do have github.com/cloudstack already
>
>> --> PR merge on github.com/cloudstackdev
>> --> hook to jenkins job pushing it to git http://git.apache.org
>> --> will be mirrored to https://github.com/apache/cloudstack
>>
>> Did I miss anything why this would not be possible?
>>
>
> this is exactly what "moving to github" would mean.
>
> if we agree to do this, we then need to work with infra and the board to make sure everything is ok in terms of provenance and that it does not "break" our ASF "commitment"
>
We can always change the bylaws and make GPG keys for commits mandatory?
That way we can always prove who made the commit.
>> The only thing would be that we can not push to http://git.apache.org
>> directly anymore.
>>
>> Regards
>> René
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>.
On 01/11/2016 10:56 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> this is exactly what "moving to github" would mean.
> if we agree to do this, we then need to work with infra and the board to make sure everything is ok in terms of provenance and that it does not "break" our ASF "commitment"
I see. Thanks for info.
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
> Hi Sebastien
>
> On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>> Part 3:
>> ————
>>
>> To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub prevent us from building more productive CI workflow and makes the life of the RM more difficult (cannot use labels, cannot use issues, cannot configured triggers/hooks etc). ...
>
> Out of curiosity, it seems the main problem is that we are using the
> apache account of github.
indeed
>
> Why don't we create an own one?
>
> e.g. github.com/cloudstackdev
>
we do have github.com/cloudstack already
> --> PR merge on github.com/cloudstackdev
> --> hook to jenkins job pushing it to git http://git.apache.org
> --> will be mirrored to https://github.com/apache/cloudstack
>
> Did I miss anything why this would not be possible?
>
this is exactly what "moving to github" would mean.
if we agree to do this, we then need to work with infra and the board to make sure everything is ok in terms of provenance and that it does not "break" our ASF "commitment"
> The only thing would be that we can not push to http://git.apache.org
> directly anymore.
>
> Regards
> René
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>.
Hi Sebastien
On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Part 3:
> ————
>
> To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub prevent us from building more productive CI workflow and makes the life of the RM more difficult (cannot use labels, cannot use issues, cannot configured triggers/hooks etc). ...
Out of curiosity, it seems the main problem is that we are using the
apache account of github.
Why don't we create an own one?
e.g. github.com/cloudstackdev
--> PR merge on github.com/cloudstackdev
--> hook to jenkins job pushing it to git http://git.apache.org
--> will be mirrored to https://github.com/apache/cloudstack
Did I miss anything why this would not be possible?
The only thing would be that we can not push to http://git.apache.org
directly anymore.
Regards
René
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
> On Jan 10, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> people, what we are saying by moving to github, completely is that, for
> now, we will be moving away from apache. Apache can not take responsibility
> for any code that is not under it's control.
Daan, thanks for jumping right in.
Part 1:
--------
As VP I started this thread and clearly I am *not* advocating leaving Apache.
- They are other Apache projects asking to host their repo on github with full access to github features. We are not alone.
- There is an experiment going on with the Apache Whimsy project to see how being hosted on GitHub could be accomplished and still fulfill requirements of the ASF. The board is aware of these demands and is trying to get data to see how this could be done.
- What I am looking for in this discussion, is to get a consensus in our community on whether we would like to make this move or not.
Leave aside the problems. Imagine an ASF project can still be an ASF project even if hosted on GitHub. Would we do this ?
Part 2 :
———
There are indeed issues with such a move, but I think the lines are more blurry than we think.
1-ASF projects already used proprietary software (hosted or not hosted on ASF infra, think JIRA, Hipchat, Slack)
2- Moving to GitHub would require all committers to get accounts on GitHub, so we would be forcing folks to get registered with a third party hosted service.
That said we already do this, since this is our commit workflow.
3- ASF would loose control on push logs (this is the main pain point for the board, as far as I can tell). This means that if there was any problems/inquiry from lawyers about who made which commits (provenance of the code), ASF may not have the info required.
4- The line is blurry, until couple years ago, ASF did not keep all push logs -even for svn-, so inquiries mentioned in 3- would not be able to be answered anyway (this is my understanding, this may not be 100% accurate)
5- ASF seems to keep some logs on IP addresses of commits, a potential privacy law issue, especially in the EU.
6- Git commits can be PGP signed, so committers could commit with their ASF PGP keys, I don’t see what better source of provenance you could find.
Part 3:
————
To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub prevent us from building more productive CI workflow and makes the life of the RM more difficult (cannot use labels, cannot use issues, cannot configured triggers/hooks etc). We want things to be easy and should work on removing barriers to productivity. That’s the reason I am advocating that we make such a move.
Indeed
> This is fine, but to satisfy
> the foundation policy, maintaining an *Apache* CloudStack we would have to
> have a process in place for contributing back to the foundation. We have
> been moving at an unmaintainable pace the last few month so change has to
> happen.
>
> Please let's discuss this carefully and with tempered down emotions. I am
> about +e -π for going to github and would just not know what move to github
> entails off the top of my head. One nice challenge is see is creating a 32G
> docker containing a cs and two hosts that can be spun up and run a set of
> integrations tests on a PR-trigger. Perfectly doable. Any volunteers? It
> can be started outside of the move to github because it can be triggere as
> we speak from any ci implementation.
>
>
> But this is not the only one. Let's define as much as possible small
> improvements and implement them. These will help us whether we move to
> github or not.
>
> regards,
> Daan
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:25 AM, chunfeng tian <ti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to moving to github.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:17 PM, ilya <il...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to moving to github.
>>>
>>> On 1/3/16 3:25 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>>> Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger
>>> consensus.
>>>>
>>>> We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
>>>>
>>>> Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub
>> to
>>> its full potential.
>>>>
>>>> The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and
>>> still maintain strong provenance of commits to keep the high quality and
>>> provenance standards of ASF code.
>>>>
>>>> If we get consensus we can request to the board to be part of the
>>> “trial” and move to Github.
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache
>> organisation
>>>>>> right? one that we can not merge to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes , that’s how I created all the docs repo and the repos for
>> ec2stack
>>> and gstack.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <
>> runseb@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github
>> at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure if the link will work, but it’s available through issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Seb
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to
>> GitHub,
>>> I
>>>>>>> would like to re-open this discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1,
>> 4.6.2
>>> and
>>>>>>> 4.7.0 we need to think about the next steps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To me Git and GitHub has become an essential tool to any software
>>>>>>> development, not using it to its full potential is hurting us.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just as an example I would like to point you to [2], this a PR I
>>> made
>>>>>>> to Kubernetes (a container orchestrator), it literally added 14
>>> characters
>>>>>>> in a json file.
>>>>>>>>>> This was really a very minor change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The PR automatically triggered 3 bots which created 7 labels, it
>>> ran
>>>>>>> end to end testss, Jenkins jobs and triggered third part builds.
>>>>>>>>>> It was automatically merged.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am fine moving to github.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But IMHO the git hosting is not the problem, the problem is how
>> far
>>> do
>>>>>>>>> we trust the current tests and how we can them improve.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moving to github doesn't improve testing. Doing manual tests is
>>> okay and
>>>>>>>>> hard work, it does not speed up things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We need fully automated unit _and_ integration tests that we
>> trust.
>>> I do
>>>>>>>>> not trust in mocking and simulating infrastructure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We discovered most of the major problems running cloudstack on
>> real
>>>>>>>>> hardware in real world scenarios. Race conditions, unexpected VR
>>>>>>>>> reboots, VMs not getting IPs from DHCP, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rating complexity of changes: easy_fix, minor_change, major_change
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Running tests according complexity:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - easy_fix: just merge it.
>>>>>>>>> - minor_change: unit and simulator test passed
>>>>>>>>> - major_change: the full blown integration testing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMHO we should work on solid testing and development is fun,
>>> merging a
>>>>>>>>> click and releasing a breath.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fully agree
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do think moving to github would allow us to run tests on real
>>> systems
>>>>>>> more easily.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> René
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tian ChunFeng
>> http://cloud.domolo.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
people, what we are saying by moving to github, completely is that, for
now, we will be moving away from apache. Apache can not take responsibility
for any code that is not under it's control. This is fine, but to satisfy
the foundation policy, maintaining an *Apache* CloudStack we would have to
have a process in place for contributing back to the foundation. We have
been moving at an unmaintainable pace the last few month so change has to
happen.
Please let's discuss this carefully and with tempered down emotions. I am
about +e -π for going to github and would just not know what move to github
entails off the top of my head. One nice challenge is see is creating a 32G
docker containing a cs and two hosts that can be spun up and run a set of
integrations tests on a PR-trigger. Perfectly doable. Any volunteers? It
can be started outside of the move to github because it can be triggere as
we speak from any ci implementation.
But this is not the only one. Let's define as much as possible small
improvements and implement them. These will help us whether we move to
github or not.
regards,
Daan
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:25 AM, chunfeng tian <ti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 to moving to github.
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:17 PM, ilya <il...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 to moving to github.
> >
> > On 1/3/16 3:25 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> > > Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger
> > consensus.
> > >
> > > We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
> > >
> > > Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub
> to
> > its full potential.
> > >
> > > The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and
> > still maintain strong provenance of commits to keep the high quality and
> > provenance standards of ASF code.
> > >
> > > If we get consensus we can request to the board to be part of the
> > “trial” and move to Github.
> > >
> > >> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache
> organisation
> > >>> right? one that we can not merge to.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yes , that’s how I created all the docs repo and the repos for
> ec2stack
> > and gstack.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <
> runseb@gmail.com
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> BTW
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github
> at:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Not sure if the link will work, but it’s available through issues.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Seb
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to
> GitHub,
> > I
> > >>>> would like to re-open this discussion.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1,
> 4.6.2
> > and
> > >>>> 4.7.0 we need to think about the next steps.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> To me Git and GitHub has become an essential tool to any software
> > >>>> development, not using it to its full potential is hurting us.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Just as an example I would like to point you to [2], this a PR I
> > made
> > >>>> to Kubernetes (a container orchestrator), it literally added 14
> > characters
> > >>>> in a json file.
> > >>>>>>> This was really a very minor change.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The PR automatically triggered 3 bots which created 7 labels, it
> > ran
> > >>>> end to end testss, Jenkins jobs and triggered third part builds.
> > >>>>>>> It was automatically merged.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am fine moving to github.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But IMHO the git hosting is not the problem, the problem is how
> far
> > do
> > >>>>>> we trust the current tests and how we can them improve.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Moving to github doesn't improve testing. Doing manual tests is
> > okay and
> > >>>>>> hard work, it does not speed up things.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We need fully automated unit _and_ integration tests that we
> trust.
> > I do
> > >>>>>> not trust in mocking and simulating infrastructure.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We discovered most of the major problems running cloudstack on
> real
> > >>>>>> hardware in real world scenarios. Race conditions, unexpected VR
> > >>>>>> reboots, VMs not getting IPs from DHCP, etc.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Rating complexity of changes: easy_fix, minor_change, major_change
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Running tests according complexity:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> - easy_fix: just merge it.
> > >>>>>> - minor_change: unit and simulator test passed
> > >>>>>> - major_change: the full blown integration testing
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> IMHO we should work on solid testing and development is fun,
> > merging a
> > >>>>>> click and releasing a breath.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Fully agree
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I do think moving to github would allow us to run tests on real
> > systems
> > >>>> more easily.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>> René
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Daan
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tian ChunFeng
> http://cloud.domolo.com
>
--
Daan
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by chunfeng tian <ti...@gmail.com>.
+1 to moving to github.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:17 PM, ilya <il...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to moving to github.
>
> On 1/3/16 3:25 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> > Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger
> consensus.
> >
> > We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
> >
> > Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to
> its full potential.
> >
> > The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and
> still maintain strong provenance of commits to keep the high quality and
> provenance standards of ASF code.
> >
> > If we get consensus we can request to the board to be part of the
> “trial” and move to Github.
> >
> >> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache organisation
> >>> right? one that we can not merge to.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes , that’s how I created all the docs repo and the repos for ec2stack
> and gstack.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> BTW
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github at:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure if the link will work, but it’s available through issues.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Seb
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub,
> I
> >>>> would like to re-open this discussion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2
> and
> >>>> 4.7.0 we need to think about the next steps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To me Git and GitHub has become an essential tool to any software
> >>>> development, not using it to its full potential is hurting us.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just as an example I would like to point you to [2], this a PR I
> made
> >>>> to Kubernetes (a container orchestrator), it literally added 14
> characters
> >>>> in a json file.
> >>>>>>> This was really a very minor change.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The PR automatically triggered 3 bots which created 7 labels, it
> ran
> >>>> end to end testss, Jenkins jobs and triggered third part builds.
> >>>>>>> It was automatically merged.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am fine moving to github.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But IMHO the git hosting is not the problem, the problem is how far
> do
> >>>>>> we trust the current tests and how we can them improve.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Moving to github doesn't improve testing. Doing manual tests is
> okay and
> >>>>>> hard work, it does not speed up things.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We need fully automated unit _and_ integration tests that we trust.
> I do
> >>>>>> not trust in mocking and simulating infrastructure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We discovered most of the major problems running cloudstack on real
> >>>>>> hardware in real world scenarios. Race conditions, unexpected VR
> >>>>>> reboots, VMs not getting IPs from DHCP, etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rating complexity of changes: easy_fix, minor_change, major_change
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Running tests according complexity:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - easy_fix: just merge it.
> >>>>>> - minor_change: unit and simulator test passed
> >>>>>> - major_change: the full blown integration testing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IMHO we should work on solid testing and development is fun,
> merging a
> >>>>>> click and releasing a breath.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fully agree
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do think moving to github would allow us to run tests on real
> systems
> >>>> more easily.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> René
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daan
> >>
> >
>
--
Tian ChunFeng
http://cloud.domolo.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
Posted by ilya <il...@gmail.com>.
+1 to moving to github.
On 1/3/16 3:25 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger consensus.
>
> We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub.
>
> Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to its full potential.
>
> The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and still maintain strong provenance of commits to keep the high quality and provenance standards of ASF code.
>
> If we get consensus we can request to the board to be part of the “trial” and move to Github.
>
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache organisation
>>> right? one that we can not merge to.
>>>
>>
>> Yes , that’s how I created all the docs repo and the repos for ec2stack and gstack.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW
>>>>
>>>> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github at:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if the link will work, but it’s available through issues.
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Seb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, I
>>>> would like to re-open this discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and
>>>> 4.7.0 we need to think about the next steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me Git and GitHub has become an essential tool to any software
>>>> development, not using it to its full potential is hurting us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just as an example I would like to point you to [2], this a PR I made
>>>> to Kubernetes (a container orchestrator), it literally added 14 characters
>>>> in a json file.
>>>>>>> This was really a very minor change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The PR automatically triggered 3 bots which created 7 labels, it ran
>>>> end to end testss, Jenkins jobs and triggered third part builds.
>>>>>>> It was automatically merged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am fine moving to github.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But IMHO the git hosting is not the problem, the problem is how far do
>>>>>> we trust the current tests and how we can them improve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moving to github doesn't improve testing. Doing manual tests is okay and
>>>>>> hard work, it does not speed up things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need fully automated unit _and_ integration tests that we trust. I do
>>>>>> not trust in mocking and simulating infrastructure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We discovered most of the major problems running cloudstack on real
>>>>>> hardware in real world scenarios. Race conditions, unexpected VR
>>>>>> reboots, VMs not getting IPs from DHCP, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rating complexity of changes: easy_fix, minor_change, major_change
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Running tests according complexity:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - easy_fix: just merge it.
>>>>>> - minor_change: unit and simulator test passed
>>>>>> - major_change: the full blown integration testing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO we should work on solid testing and development is fun, merging a
>>>>>> click and releasing a breath.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fully agree
>>>>>
>>>>> I do think moving to github would allow us to run tests on real systems
>>>> more easily.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> René
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>
>