Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B5A02688-8DEE-4B6A-B45C-D81C2B074E9B@adobe.com>
 <CAOqetn_oNuAVity1b-D1p1g+bXN1ZWqpWD9Y1r87aTmDuvyQvQ@mail.gmail.com> <A2D4622B-39DD-46F7-B07B-7E498B4E0784@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <A2D4622B-39DD-46F7-B07B-7E498B4E0784@adobe.com>
From: "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 21:29:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOqetn_ywghtz_pS7yuBmAQn2+NBMG54C2zV4X091Lv1NADa_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1288f48810920540806075
archived-at: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 21:30:06 -0000

--94eb2c1288f48810920540806075
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Hi John
>
> My understanding is, that we are well aware of this concern, which others
> have mentioned as well.
>
> Also Greg noted in the proposal:
>
> > gstein sez: the podling can only graduate within an approved repository
> system. The IPMC may have a differing opinion, but from an Infra
> perspective: the OpenWhisk podling can continue with their usage of a
> GitHub repository, but faces a clear obstacle: GitHub "as master [as
> allowed by the Foundation]" must be approved and working before the
> graduation, or they must migrate their primary to the Foundation's Git
> repository (at git-wip) before they graduate.
>

I would like to get other IPMC members to weigh in on this comment, before
I comment.  Greg is the Infra Admin, he is an IPMC member but that's
obligatory.  He is explicitly stating that the IPMC may have an opinion
other than his own.


>
> I think this sounds like a good compromise to work on and the poddling
> intends to work actively with Infra to see that we can stay in GitHub. If
> that is not possible, we byte the bullet accordingly.
>
> In addition, also according to Greg:
>
> > We require that anybody committing to a GitHub repository authenticates
> with BOTH: GitHub, and the ASF. No commits without that multiple
> authentication. (this is based on our current experiments with Whimsy and
> Traffic Server; same rules would apply to this podling)
>
> The original discussion took place after the initial submission, see [1]
>
> Does that help ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1c22a29b69e944ee725278aae05bd41dea80=
d10d0d204c26eb4cb24c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> > Am 04.11.2016 um 15:20 schrieb John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:
> >
> > I raised the concern over using github as the primary repo.  This is
> still
> > unresolved, as I understood it.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]:
> >>
> >> - restructured the API Gateway references: It is expected
> >>   that the API Gateway will be refactored with additional
> >>   code donated by IBM during incubation.
> >> - added a note on the API Gateway=E2=80=99s dependency on OpenSSL
> >> - added a note on Trademarks IBM is currently pursuing and
> >>   intends to transfer to ASF
> >> - fixed some typos
> >>
> >> With these changes and no discussions over the course of the recent
> weeks,
> >> I would propose we could could vote for OpenWhisk to become an
> incubating
> >> project over the course of next weeks.
> >>
> >> Of course we are still open to welcome interested people to become
> initial
> >> committers to OpenWhisk Servlerless Runtime and API Gateway !
> >>
> >> WDYT ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Felix
> >>
> >> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
>
>

--94eb2c1288f48810920540806075--