On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> ...There could be issues down the road which means that this option is
> withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were
> later disappointed...
Same here, having one willing podling experiment is fine, but I
wou
There are clearly some issues to work out. These boil down to
a) technical. IPMC doesn't need to vote on that. Greg and Dan and Infra can
vote by doing or not.
b) policy details about who gets which permissions and when. I think that
these can be solved by discussion and consensus and don't even
On 11/09/2016 01:00 AM, Christopher wrote:
> Sorry if these questions have already been answered, but I'm still a bit
> confused, so if anybody can answer I'd be grateful.
>
> Why is GA for podlings being considered before GA for TLPs? Or, is GitHub
> already generally available to TLPs, and I mis
Sorry if these questions have already been answered, but I'm still a bit
confused, so if anybody can answer I'd be grateful.
Why is GA for podlings being considered before GA for TLPs? Or, is GitHub
already generally available to TLPs, and I missed that? If I didn't miss
anything, what are the arg
I'm +1 to this for OpenWhisk.
I'm -1 to this as a general availability.
There could be issues down the road which means that this option is
withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were
later disappointed.
Niall
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament
>> wrote:
>> > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
>> > answered to be able to move forward on this.
>> >
+1 to both in principle (yay), but with admin access not initially given to
podling committers; as that could encourage "business as usual" for adding
friends&family as committers without a vote.
So I agree that the transition of the existing repositories need to be
handled well.
On 7 Nov 2016 10
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>...
> > As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see
> > podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors.
> > That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the
> > "incubator" group are
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
> > answered to be able to move forward on this.
> >
> > - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
> answered to be able to move forward on this.
>
> - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL.
> Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator
I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
answered to be able to move forward on this.
- Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL.
Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator, I expect that the
"OpenWhisk" organization be handed over to
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP hurdle.
> Has that been resolved?
LDAP is tens of hours worth of work - total. And I volunteered to do
the bulk of the initial effort. Frankly, it is more of a timing
conside
Reading the other thread on this it seems it has not yet. Let me know if
any external to infra help is wanted.
Thanks.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 16:29 Phil Sorber wrote:
> I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP
> hurdle. Has that been resolved?
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 1
I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP hurdle.
Has that been resolved?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 15:24 Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein ou
It does, Joe, but the IPMC needs to decide whether to even *ask* ... It is
an entirely reasonable position to say that focusing primary development at
GitHub could hurt some aspect of ASF-style community building, and (thus)
the IPMC does not want to allow that.
Infra will start with OpenWhisk (if
With regard to the second question I hope the ultimate decision still rests
with Greg. This idea is fairly new and some baby steps are in order before
opening the floodgates.
IMO
On Monday, November 7, 2016, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling bei
Hi,
As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra Admin
has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
I ask now:
1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
2. Is the IPMC OK with this
> Yes. It's no good me or any one person promising to be here in 5 years
> time. There has to be a pool of users sufficiently interested and
> empowered to be able to become administrators.
>
5 years ago, there probably wasn't bugzilla... If a particular community
decides to use it, then someon
Jeff,
I think the 'empowered' part is where Bugzilla falls down. I don't know
about Scarab, but JIRA administration is mostly done through the web
interface. Project-specific admins can be specified, who are allowed to
create new versions/components for their project.
Don't forget that the im
Quoting Andreas Kuckartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> experience with Perl, CPAN and MySQL available in case something does not
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/J/JW/JWIED
^
Siehe selbe URL
Gruß,
Jo
Quoting Andreas Kuckartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> experience with Perl, CPAN and MySQL available in case something does not
^ ^ ^
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/J/JW/JWIED
Gruß,
Jochen
--
> Any idea what it would take to update bugzilla? Is it just a
> replace-the-script operation, or is it more involved?
Details for the latest released version (2.16.3) are documented here:
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs216/html/upgrading.html
Conflicting Perl library versions are one potential pro
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 06:36 pm, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think it would be helpful to have a discussion and consensus on which
issue tracking tool should be adopted, and why, but it ought to be
ASF-wide.
I don't believe that it makes sense for us to use multiple tools in
the same
spac
(moving to infrastructure@, where this is more relevant. Thread at
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10614699951&r=1&w=2)
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:36:35PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Jeff Turner wrote:
...
> > I volunteer :) Hacking JIRA is my day job.
>
> I think it would be
Quoting "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> we have you and Henri Yandell volunteering to help admin the tool. For
> bugzilla, we've really got no one who seems devoted to it (or they just stay
> quiet).
If that turns out to be a problem, I'd volunteer. I am an emerited committer
of perl.ap
Andreas Kuckartz commented:
> >bugzilla seems to be the one tool that is driving projects to use
> >foreign tools [...]
> One reason might be that this problem with the installation on nagoya is
not
> fixed - which could be done by upgrading to a current version of Bugzilla:
> query.cgi j
James,
> I'm happy either way really. I'm quite happy with the status quo but if
> folks wanna move it to Apache infrastructure instead I'm a firm +1 also.
Remember, though, the original question posed by Brian on this thread: is
the status quo (having projects go off the infrastructure for these
Jeff,
Jeff Turner wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
> > Though there's no reason, given some hardware and a volunteer, why we
> > couldn't install JIRA at Apache.
> [if] infrastructure peeps prefer to keep bugtrackers on ASF hardware
Well, that was the question being raised. Should those tools be
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 01:46 pm, Jeff Turner wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 07:17:56AM +0100, James Strachan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 10:23 pm, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I've asked that question before, and been told that CVS is mandatory,
the official web site must be on
> I don't really see the need though. Bob is doing a fine job hosting JIRA
> on werken.com. I'm sure that backups to ASF hardware could be arranged
> if that were really an issue.
Thanks. We do backup offsite on a nightly basis, also.
> But if a) Bob would like to offload the job, b) infrastru
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:46:24 +1000
Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if a) Bob would like to offload the job, b) infrastructure peeps
> prefer to keep bugtrackers on ASF hardware, then if someone can toss
> me a nagoya account I'll set up a pilot JIRA installation.
Ditto:
Also, pleas
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 07:17:56AM +0100, James Strachan wrote:
> >
> > Though there's no reason, given some hardware and a volunteer, why we
> > couldn't install JIRA at Apache.
>
> I volunteer :) Hacking JIRA is my day job.
I'm happy to help. While n
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 07:17:56AM +0100, James Strachan wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 10:23 pm, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >I've asked that question before, and been told that CVS is mandatory,
> >the official web site must be on the ASF infrastructure, but that
> >other tools might no
>bugzilla seems to be the one tool that is driving projects to use
>foreign tools [...]
One reason might be that this problem with the installation on nagoya is not
fixed - which could be done by upgrading to a current version of Bugzilla:
query.cgi javascript is as slow as molasses
http:
> Though there's no reason, given some hardware and a volunteer, why we
> couldn't install JIRA at Apache.
As I said:
John Mcnally has said that he'll install the new version of Scarab.
There is also Jira, which I am told we could install. Either way,
bugzilla seems to be the one tool t
James Strachan wrote:
Though there's no reason, given some hardware and a volunteer, why we
couldn't install JIRA at Apache.
+1
--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog athttp:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 10:23 pm, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I've asked that question before, and been told that CVS is mandatory,
the
official web site must be on the ASF infrastructure, but that other
tools
might not be mandatory.
Personally, I'm not entirely comfortable with more and m
I've asked that question before, and been told that CVS is mandatory, the
official web site must be on the ASF infrastructure, but that other tools
might not be mandatory.
Personally, I'm not entirely comfortable with more and more projects going
to werken/codehaus to use jira, but I can't quite p
Is it better for apache.org projects to use the same collaboration tools,
or should each be allowed to choose their own?
Brian
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:03:32 +0100
From: James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PRO
39 matches
Mail list logo
