aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jake Farrell <jfarr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: the status of pesos
Date Thu, 07 May 2015 04:16:00 GMT
We will have to follow the ip clearance process [1] to donate the rights to
the ASF. Dave, Henry or I can help with the member required portions of
the process. once secretary@ files all the paperwork I will create and
import the repos.

-Jake


[1]: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html




On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Brian Wickman <wickman@apache.org> wrote:

> 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