Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-2989-apmail-aurora-dev-archive=aurora.apache.org@aurora.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-aurora-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-aurora-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C4B817688
	for <apmail-aurora-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:33:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 99781 invoked by uid 500); 22 Apr 2015 20:33:24 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-aurora-dev-archive@aurora.apache.org
Received: (qmail 99734 invoked by uid 500); 22 Apr 2015 20:33:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@aurora.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@aurora.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@aurora.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@aurora.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.aurora.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@aurora.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@aurora.apache.org
Received: (qmail 99723 invoked by uid 99); 22 Apr 2015 20:33:23 -0000
Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org)
 (140.211.11.15)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:33:23 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com
 [209.85.223.182])
	by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with
 ESMTPSA id A3E561A00B6
	for <dev@aurora.apache.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:33:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iedfl3 with SMTP id fl3so52509595ied.1
        for <dev@aurora.apache.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: 
 ALoCoQmvscUamuljXPNiPukkn7LHogfwTCIXlTCQCBRGhbEB04Ke/pKmxtyj1ZTB1EU1k2i2a7qr
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.137.97 with SMTP id qh1mr7299106igb.39.1429734803123;
 Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.86.7 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANyrgvfrGysnJdu3nScpw2BYBhaTZDQ7amdGDVbhj1A=vqtpBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAFTdr0DExff0LbM45DV7_pdZ0T6NSXU_4ZcMkTawzaeSxOGAhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANyrgvfrGysnJdu3nScpw2BYBhaTZDQ7amdGDVbhj1A=vqtpBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:33:23 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAFTdr0D2Q5v2T93_9ggmJVKu5Lmo7kEtcn6HHCNotfrrvoaeEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: the status of pesos
From: Brian Wickman <wickman@apache.org>
To: dev@aurora.apache.org, jfarrell@apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3f1f4104ee0051456131c

--001a11c3f1f4104ee0051456131c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

My only reservation with aurora-* repos is that it discourages discovery
and will lead to confusion about the scope of the projects.  pesos and
compactor are broadly useful to the mesos ecosystem, so names like
'aurora-pesos' can genuinely draw people away.

It sounds like the main concerns people have with the status quo revolves
around ownership (who can merge patches) and quality (that all code merged
to master is reviewed with the same scrutiny as the rest of Aurora.)  I
think these are reasonable concerns, but I think they're more valid once we
rely upon the code for production.  Right now pesos is purely an optional
feature, so I don't think that the above review should be blocked on the
"incubating" nature of pesos, otherwise we'll be stuck with a
chicken-and-egg situation where we have little way to vet the code in a
meaningful way.

Here's a counterproposal: we create an Aurora top level project on github a
la mesos (call it aurora-incubating, aurora-project, apache-aurora,
whatever, since aurora is taken), giving all committers write access to all
projects therein.  We may not be able to rely upon reviewboard, but we can
at least solve the problem of ownership.

Thoughts?




On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org> wrote:

> We only sync reviewboard repos from our git-wip or svn servers. I would
> recommend that we move them into aurora-<project> name git repos so they
> can have their own release cycles
>
> -Jake
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Brian Wickman <wickman@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >  I started work in r/32373 <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32373/> to add
> > pesos <https://github.com/wickman/pesos> support for the Aurora
> executor.
> > Pesos is a pure python implementation of the Mesos API.  Adding Pesos
> > support to Aurora will pave the way towards "pip install" and the
> standard
> > python packaging toolchain as a means to package/install the Aurora
> > executor, without relying upon a cumbersome Mesos build process that is
> > predicated on the nuances of libmesos and its myriad dependencies e.g.
> > glibc, C++11 and libsvn/apr.
> >
> > Pesos and its dependent library, compactor
> > <https://github.com/wickman/compactor>, are both projects on my personal
> > github.  I'd like to keep them independent repositories.  My experience
> > shows that vendoring these sorts of things reduces discoverability and
> > peoples' willingness to contribute, and increases likelihood of forks.
> >
> > That being said, I'm not convinced they should be under my personal
> github
> > either because I'm a poor BDFL
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life> candidate.
> > Instead they should either be under the moniker of the mesos github
> > organization (there is precedent <https://github.com/mesos/mesos-go> for
> > this) or we should create an Aurora organization for third party projects
> > that tend to be developed under the Aurora umbrella, e.g. pystachio.
> >
> > Regardless of where they live, I think we should immediately start using
> > reviewboard to do code reviews for patches.  Does anyone know if this is
> > feasible using reviews.apache.org if the code does not live under the
> > apache umbrella?  (The code itself is Apache licensed.)
> >
> > ~brian
> >
>

--001a11c3f1f4104ee0051456131c--