cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
Date Sat, 19 Mar 2016 18:30:42 GMT
I'm away at the moment but I do believe that signed commits was
acknowledged.

board: r62882 -
/foundation/board/github-discussion/explorations/signed-commits.txt

Feel free to share anonimized content from that file.
On Mar 19, 2016 2:12 PM, "sebgoa" <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > The initial action (creating the fork) was not clearly done by the PMC
> > as a whole, that is now being rectified by a retroactive vote being
> > taken.  Even that I wouldn't suggest be done any differently: many
> > parts of the ASF prefer a Commit then Review (CTR).  Under normal
> > circumstances, a vote would not be necessary.
> >
>
> To be transparent and avoid any hint at back door conversations (which are
> sadly too often alluded too). Let me highlight a few historical steps:
>
> - We switched to GitHub PR almost a year ago and stopped using RB.
> - Through fall Remi and co worked on a new commit workflow to speed
> releases, their productivity was “damaged” by lack of github access,
> namely: -no labels, no ability to close PR, no access to issues, no access
> to triggers/hooks.
> - Remi reached out to VP infra (David) couple times I believe and a
> discussion in Dublin (~Oct).
> -Through our PMC project report (written by me as VP and LGTM’d by the
> PMC), I made several mention of our intent to use Github (and docker Hub)
> more efficiently. I even said that if we where getting early access to the
> “Whimsy experiment” we would quickly VOTE in our community to decide on
> such a move.
> - I never got any replies or comments (even though I mentioned that lack
> of github access was putting our community at risk of fragmentation).
> - Wido reached out to Github back in december when he saw there was
> already a cloudstack org ( not sure who created it and controlled it
> actually.)
> - Schuberg forked and created cosmic in feb sometime.
> - Finally last week, I took unilateral decision to click ‘fork’ on
> apache/cloudstack and put a copy in cloudstack/cloudstack , thinking this
> would kick the tires and would give us a playground to start experimenting
> with CI taking advantage of full control of github settings.
>
> As a member of ASF I had witnessed several threads around the use of
> GitHub and there are clearly strong feelings on the issue. I tried to
> participate in those threads and even demoed with another member that we
> could clearly guarantee provenance by signing all commits with ASF issued
> GPG keys, but that was not even acknowledged.
>
> Moving to Github (in some fashion) is indeed problematic to the ASF and a
> fully independent open source project. We end up depending on a vendor for
> hosting our repo and this puts us at risk if Github were to go bonkers. We
> can argue about such a risk, and we can also raise examples of other
> vendor/proprietary software being used/depended on by ASF projects (JIRA,
> Slack…). It also “moves” the community. While we are on the dev@ and
> other ML, the issue that we may move the community to Github and give the
> impression that project is not at ASF project is real. But to be honest
> there is already such confusion in OSS with projects on ASF v2 license
> being perceived by most as ASF projects.
>
> Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue and
> trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in particular)
> should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a GitHub
> world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a Cloud
> world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board.
>
> Hence yes, as my last action as VP I clicked on “fork”, and now I hope we
> will move forward, and get the board to proactively do something.
>
> -Sebastien
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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