I think what most of us are trying to achieve is the ability for the code to remain in sync, while getting access to the Github features we so desperately need.
This is obviously a difficult problem for everyone involved and I respect that. A healthy debate on this is the only way we are going to be able to align the ASF requirements with the community needs. I appreciate the ASF's need for transparency and control in these matters, but I hope the ASF appreciates our need for CI and getting systems in place to be able to consistently validate the quality of the code getting committed. We, the community, are the ones who are directly impacted by the lack of CI integrations to ensure the quality is maintained. Creating a fork where we have to change the branding, etc, is really the worst of both worlds IMO. First, we have already diverged the source because the branding has changed. It would create confusing in the community, which you have rightfully pointed out, and makes it harder for us to know where we should be 'contributing'. I think we should try to avoid this if at all possible because it is not in anyone's best interest. That being said, I don't get the impression that the ASF is willing to come to the table to actually work with us to overcome the very real challenges we are facing. We are actively working to find a solution which respects the ASF requirements, but so far, this has not produced any suggestions for how we can move forward with a solution that addresses our needs. Keep in mind that these are my opinions and others may have different ideas, but we are all working towards the success of this project. *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Will, > > Cloudstack is more than just the code and its mirroring. It’s the > community and the ability for those to participate. The issues that > occur at cloudstack/cloudstack will not be mirrored to the ASF; the > convo won’t be mirrored, and least of all the people and their belief > in the branding of cloudstack/cloudstack as the “canonical” repo for > apache/cloudstack is what I’m talking about. If someone told me, > oh you can do X, Y, Z GitHub stuff at cloudstack/cloustack, and that’s > where all the automated testing, liveliness is, all the people working > on it, that’s basically by definition a fork, and a moving/shifting > of the community. > > There isn’t really any other way to describe it. > > As for your question about mirroring apache/cloudstack to > cloudstack/cloudstack I don’t believe we support that currently. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: <williamstev...@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens > <wstev...@cloudops.com> > Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:31 AM > To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull > request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...) > > >I am not sure I understand how people wanting to participate with Apache > >Cloudstack would ever be at a disadvantage, it would still all be the same > >code base. The changes in cloudstack/cloudstack would get pushed to the > >ASF repo and would then get mirrored to the apache/cloudstack repo, so > >they > >would all be in sync. > > > >Out of curiosity, is it possible to have ASF mirror to apache/cloudstack > >(as it currently does) and then have apache/cloudstack mirror to > >cloudstack/cloudstack? This way to can guarantee that the ASF repo is the > >canonical repo, while also being able to take advantage of an improved dev > >workflow and the integration of distributed CI environments. > > > > > > > >*Will STEVENS* > >Lead Developer > > > >*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > >420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > >w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > >On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < > >chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > > >> Hi Mike, > >> > >> Thank you. What you describe effectively below is going to > >> implicitly switch the “canonical” repo in my opinion of the > >> > >> repository to cloudstack/cloudstack. Merges that happen there, > >> conversation that happens there on PRs and issues, labels, etc., > >> will be captured there and likely at increased pace and velocity, > >> leaving the folks wanting to participate in the Apache Cloudstack > >> project who aren’t part of cloudstack/cloudstack at a disadvantage. > >> > >> Thanks for speaking up and looking forward to more discussion. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> > >> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM > >> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack > >>pull > >> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...) > >> > >> >As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to > >> >help with developer workflow and CI. > >> > > >> >To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in > >>the > >> >canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to > >> >apache/cloudstack). > >> > > >> >This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI > >> >issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo. > >> > > >> >I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack > >> >and going off in a different direction. > >> >________________________________________ > >> >From: Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> > >> >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM > >> >To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> >Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack > >> >pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...) > >> > > >> >Hi Sebastien, > >> > > >> > > >> >[..] > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi Sebastien, > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board. > >> >>> > >> >>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the > >> >>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that > >> >>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned > >> >>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new > >> >>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss. > >> >> > >> >>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF > >> >>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack. > >> > > >> >OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see > >> >the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which > >> >I’ll get back to later in this message. > >> > > >> >> > >> >>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us > >>contacted > >> >>github and we got the “control” of it. > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub > >> >>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring, > >> >>> active GitHub issue, > >> >> > >> >>As far as I know we cannot use github issues. > >> >>[..snip..] > >> >>To close PRs you need to make a commit. > >> >[..snip..] > >> >>Be able to use labels > >> >>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks > >> > > >> >David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or > >> >cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a > >>request > >> >>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of > >> >>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC - > >> >> > >> >>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back. > >> > > >> >Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board > >> >until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s > >> >my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered > >> >going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other > >> >PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further > >> >response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen > >> >you can take my response until then. > >> > > >> >>[..snip..] > >> > > >> >> > >> >>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the > >> >>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this - > >> >> > >> >>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics. > >> > > >> >I’m not trying to attack. > >> > > >> >I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC > >> >is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an > >> >attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to. > >> > > >> >I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will > >> >speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that. > >> > > >> >>[..snip..] > >> >>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing > >> >>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest. > >> >> > >> >>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy > >>of > >> >>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF > >> >>>hardware. > >> >> > >> >>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this. > >> > > >> >Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF > >>Infra@ > >> >and based on > >> >discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of > >>the > >> >board > >> >meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to > >> other > >> >PMCs > >> >as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for > >> >potential > >> >other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that > >> >capability > >> >is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more. > >> > > >> >> > >> >>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the > >> >>>canonical > >> >>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by > >> >>>the > >> >>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment > >>with > >> >>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is > >>still > >> >>>an > >> >>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ? > >> > > >> >Not at this time. > >> > > >> >>[..snip..] > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the > >> >>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after > >>seeing > >> >>our report ? > >> >>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from > >> >>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report). > >> > > >> >I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters > >> >that > >> >I have support of other board members in asking these questions based > >>on > >> >the > >> >meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a > >> >long-time > >> >ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I > >>have > >> >seen > >> >by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me > >> >that there > >> >is something more than meets the eye here. > >> > > >> >Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the > >> >community besides > >> >the two of us. > >> > > >> >Cheers, > >> >Chris > >> > > >> >> > >> >>> Thanks, > >> >>> Chris > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> > >> >>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> >>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM > >> >>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> >>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] > >>cloudstack > >> >>>pull > >> >>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...) > >> >>> > >> >>>> Hi Chris, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF > >> >>>>threads. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that > >> >>>>you > >> >>>> are a member of the ASF board. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report for march, as well as an > >> >>>>interim > >> >>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by > >>Sam > >> >>>>Ruby > >> >>>> couple days ago only. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting > >> >>>>and > >> >>>> that we will hear from the board then. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly > we > >> >>>>feel > >> >>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Best, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -Sebastien > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard > >> >>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively > >> >>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source > >> >>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat, > >> >>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Cheers, > >> >>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >
