On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:29 PM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hopefully last set of questions for now... > > 1) It sounds like there is a risk that as the ASF grows, GH may not be > able to grow with us. Did I understand that correctly? > GitHub will always grow faster than us. Not a worry. > 2) If we have money to offer GH, why can't we offer money to the CI > Vendors so we aren't really abusing their free tiers? > We already pay TravisCI, Inc. for a set of builders. We also have lots of donated credits from multiple vendors, and donated build nodes. See else-thread about "expand to consume all provided capacity". 3) Does GH track my activity in the ASF GH repos as part of the API usage > for Apache? IOW, am I adding to the ASF API count by closing an issue on > github.com? Or if I ran a script on my computer that closed the issue by > using their API? > API usage is per-user, not about the target repo/org, so what *you* do has no bearing upon limits for Foundation tooling. Good question. > I think builds.a.o is a great free service, but AIUI, the > no-third-party-write-access rule is independent of whether CI is free or > not. I cannot pay money and get write-access to the ASF repos. > Yes and yes. Downstream users trust Apache because of our provenance rules (per feedback over the years). Spoiling that assurance, spoils our reputation; that is kind of at the heart of the issue for the Board to debate. We can conceivably code our way into a proxy that creates limitations, but $world that is using GitHub won't be using our proxy. Our builder nodes that publish to the asf-site branch is within our control. It *does* effectively use our established proxy/controls. Welcome to the Infra world of CI/CD :p Cheers, -g
