aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Wickman <wick...@apache.org>
Subject Re: the status of pesos
Date Wed, 06 May 2015 19:32:52 GMT
In order to unblock the current situation, I've come around to just setting
up aurora-compactor and aurora-pesos for now (later it may make sense to do
aurora-pystachio and aurora-thermos as well.)  If there ever becomes a
consistent story for the mesos github organization, we can reevaluate.

Jake, what do we do about setting up these repositories?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org> wrote:

> Creating a project on Github as suggested does not give the IP rights to
> the ASF for any of the code, it would be an external project and would no
> different than keeping it as your personal github project. I do not think
> this is a good route to start down for any Apache Aurora/Mesos additions
> like this
>
> -Jake
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Brian Wickman <wickman@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message