Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+ULb+sLurLfjaAgO=jAq+ejHgnJ9qBVhcP1exB18KaFjfsTcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8298AA99-0229-4B7C-9062-766853BFF800@apache.org> <CA+ULb+sLurLfjaAgO=jAq+ejHgnJ9qBVhcP1exB18KaFjfsTcQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:54:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+0=VoVb6T0pKc2u9HAi+DaX7_YpOpNeNzGwpsn31brW9rBGYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11404b86badfac054d7f82b9
archived-at: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:55:35 -0000

--001a11404b86badfac054d7f82b9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:
>
> First of all, it really isn't a good thing that a major functionality
> was developed
> behind the firewall without any feedback from Apache Ignite community.
>
> So the first question I'd like to ask is this: what was the reason for this
> to be developed in such a way (and a follow up -- how can this be
> avoided in the future)?
>
> In my experience the only excuse for something like that is either a work
> that was done before the project joined ASF or work that was done under
> the draconian initial license agreement that can now be re-licensed under
> ASF.
>

Completely agree and I would also personally prefer that all features are
developed in the open source community from the get go. In this case it was
not possible, as it initially was developed for one of the GridGain
customers and eventually evolved into something that could add value to the
community - hence the proposal to open source it.

The code is not complete yet, and will require additional development
before it can become a part of an official Ignite release. I would prefer
that the remaining development can happen openly in the Ignite community.


>
> Which brings me to my next point: any addition to the project that doesn't
> go through the normal channels of small reversible commits that are easy
> to scrutinize for IP issues needs to be vetted. Depending on the size of
> the
> donation a separate SGA for ASF may be required.
>

Correct. We will also be required to fill out the IP-Clearance form,
specifically designed for situations like this one, when a code is donated
into an existing code base:

http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/


>
> Which brings me to my last point: where's the code? In order to have a
> factual conversation about the next steps in the process I'd like to be
> able to take a look at the code available to me under the Apache License.
>

Hm... I guess you are right, the code needs to be provided in a public GIT
repository for review. To my knowledge this has not been done yet.


> On top of which, I would like to either have a full access to the commit
> and authorship history of this code OR a statement from the current
> overall copyright owner.
>

Would a standard SGA suffice here?

I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen
first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC
vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the
SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA right
away?


>
> Please make it available and post the URL to this thread. Then we can
> discuss the next steps.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman (wearing his ASF member hat).
>

--001a11404b86badfac054d7f82b9--