cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Managing the cloudstack-extras github organization
Date Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:27:22 GMT
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<> wrote:
> On 1/4/13 6:32 AM, "Chip Childers" <> wrote:
>>On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:17 PM, David Nalley <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Chip Childers
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Although this list is officially the Apache CloudStack dev list, I
>>>> think it's also the right place to collaborate about the
>>>> cloudstack-extras Github organization (
>>>> ).  Any issues using this list to
>>>> discuss cloudstack-extras?
>>>> If no issues...
>>>> I'd like to propose that we effectively equate Apache CloudStack
>>>> committer status to having the right to have commit permissions to the
>>>> repos in that Github organization.  Any objections to that?
>>>> I'd further like to propose that projects from non-committers, that
>>>> want to be moved to CloudStack-extras, are initially created by the
>>>> contributor under their own organization or personal account, and then
>>>> moved into Cloudstack-extras after a discussion on this list.
>>>> For projects under the cloudstack-extras org, I'd propose that we use
>>>> the standard github pull request mechanism to pull in updates.
>>>> Last, I'd like to propose that we change the Cloudstack-extras org
>>>> profile "location" field from "Not affiliated with the Apache
>>>> CloudStack project" to "These are not projects of the Apache Software
>>>> Foundation".
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> -chip
>>> So currently these are largely separate efforts. The folks working on
>>> knife-cloudstack or puppet-cloudstack largely aren't directly
>>> contributing to Apache CloudStack. (with a few exceptions) These
>>> projects have either no real community or their own community
>>> (knife-cloudstack being the example there). To be clear - I'd
>>> personally prefer that these go to live elsewhere, and we get rid of
>>> most of the repos in that org.
>>Fair point about those non-project community repos.
>>> I am also somewhat concerned about providing governance for these
>>> external projects. If we (the project) do want to provide governance,
>>> we can trivially get additional git repos on ASF hardware.
>>Perhaps that's the path we need to take...  What caused me to ask the
>>question was the discussion of the .NET CloudStack API binding that's
>>under development.  We discussed putting that in cloudstack-extras,
>>hence me raising the question of governance around the github org.
>>However, your alternative may be more logical.  We coule handle
>>projects like that (and even potentially things in the tools folder of
>>the CS codebase) by creating separate repos (and even possibly having
>>different releases).
>>> --David
> Quite confused here.
> Is the proposal to have them hosted on ASF, but at the same time NOT
> part of CloudStack?
> If it is not part of CloudStack, should we care about governance?

My point was:
If we provide governance - they should be at the ASF.
If they aren't at the ASF we should likely not provide governance.


View raw message