cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
Date Fri, 18 Mar 2016 07:10:39 GMT
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <wstevens@cloudops.com> wrote:

> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
>
> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality.  The ASF does not have
> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.
>
> What if we did the following:
> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have
> 'owner' role representation.
> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
> repo.  This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish
> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack project
> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it.  There are probably
> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything
> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a
> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will
> be no segmentation of the community.
> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project, so
> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
> "fork".
>
> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
> direction.
>
> What do you all think?

​Will, I think it makes sense for the foundation to have a github
organisation per project, which is basically what you are saying. An
alternative might be sub- or nested organisations which I am sure, is a
thing the people at github must have thought about at some time. If
foundation policy at all allows for this we must.​



-- 
Daan

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