openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at init time
Date Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:26:29 GMT
My 2 cents about the "contrib" repo for best effort support and
experimental code we already have a repo

It used be named incubator-openwhisk-experimental, but then we rename it to
incubator-openwhisk-devtools [1]

If any one has some cool experiments we have created a new folder in the
repo and add some trivial travis test

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-devtools
-cs

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 2:13 AM Michele Sciabarra <michele@sciabarra.com>
wrote:

> Hmm, I understand the concern but I wonder HOW the "convenience" binaries
> should be handled in practice.
>
> In OpenWhisk what it matters is the runtime you specify with --docker, so
> that "convenience" is not really just a convenience, it is a core
> requirement.
>
> We could setup an openwhisk contrib repository, but I cannot image a
> single Travis build to be able to rebuild many images (at the moment I have
> at least 4) and push  all of them to docker hub...
>
>
> --
>   Michele Sciabarra
>   michele@sciabarra.com
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com.INVALID>
> To: "dev@openwhisk.apache.org" <dev@openwhisk.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at init
> time
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:00:07 +0000
>
> Hi Michele
>
> This is shaky ground and we don’t want to be the next npm horror story.
>
> Technically speaking, at Apache we primarily release source packages, all
> binary is pure convenience. Granted the convience today is what most people
> use.
>
> So what we should primarily do, as Bertrand hinted, is have a contrib
> repository. We can still have a contrib docker account into which the
> OpenWhisk PMC can regularly „dump“ binary builds for convience. But it must
> be clearly stated that those are not releases, have no release quality and
> all the usual disclaimers.
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> > Am 12.12.2018 um 10:55 schrieb Michele Sciabarra <michele@sciabarra.com
> >:
> >
> > Actually more than an account on GitHub it is important to have a docker
> hub account named "openwhisk-contrib" so you can deploy an action with
> something like:
> >
> > wsk create myaction --docker openwhisk-contrib/actionloop-gccgo-v1.10
> >
> > To publish images, you can do sothing as simple as ask, maybe opening a
> ticket, to push an image msciab/actionloop-gccgo-v1.10
> > to  openwhisk-contrib/actionloop-gccgo-v1.10.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >  Michele Sciabarra
> >  michele@sciabarra.com
> >
> > ----- Original message -----
> > From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at
> init time
> > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:45:43 +0100
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:42 AM Michele Sciabarra
> > <michele@sciabarra.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Indeed I was thinking to create a docker account  "openwhisk-contrib"
> to place those, let's say, unofficial images.
> >> I am not sure who should own this account...
> >
> > Accounts with "openwhisk" in their name should be owned by the
> > OpenWhisk (P)PMC as the name is a trademark of the Apache Software
> > Foundation - technically being donated as we speak IIUC but that
> > doesn't make a real difference.
> >
> > However what we are discussing here IMO is code repositories as code
> > is what the ASF produces. I guess Felix's suggestion is to create one
> > or a few openwhisk-contrib-* Git repositories under
> > https://github.com/apache/ for such "contrib" modules.
> >
> > -Bertrand
>
>

-- 
Carlos Santana
<csantana23@gmail.com>

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