ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)
Date Fri, 12 May 2017 21:59:14 GMT

The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:

Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The rest, that connects
Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is under “core” and “indexing” modules.
Alex Goncharuk should be able to point to specific files or commits if required.

Here is a description:
* Persistent Store Overview: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview
* Persistent Store Internal Design: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design

The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday.

In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the template below but
failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:

*Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or committing the form from
under your account?


> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@boudnik.org> wrote:
> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code
> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this.
> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said.
> Thanks,
> --
>  Take care,
> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> <dsetrakyan@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then
>>>>> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA
>>>> right
>>>>> away?
>>>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In order
>>>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;)
>>> Haha :)
>>> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community for a
>>> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior to the
>>> community accepting the donation.
>> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base.
>> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look
>> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it.
>> SGA established this kind of proper licensing.
>> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest
>> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the
>> community.
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.

View raw message