atom feed14 messages in org.apache.incubator.generalRe: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incuba...
FromSent OnAttachments
Sam RubyOct 13, 2016 1:27 pm 
Greg SteinOct 13, 2016 10:31 pm 
Mark StrubergOct 13, 2016 11:15 pm 
Sam RubyOct 14, 2016 3:29 am 
John D. AmentOct 14, 2016 3:50 am 
Felix MeschbergerOct 14, 2016 4:52 am 
Mark StrubergOct 14, 2016 6:37 am 
Felix MeschbergerOct 14, 2016 7:16 am 
Greg SteinOct 14, 2016 7:26 am 
Mark StrubergOct 14, 2016 7:51 am 
Mark StrubergOct 14, 2016 8:00 am 
Jim JagielskiOct 17, 2016 8:30 am 
Sam RubyOct 17, 2016 8:48 am 
Isabel Drost-FrommOct 19, 2016 3:58 am 
Subject:Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal
From:Mark Struberg (stru@yahoo.de.INVALID)
Date:Oct 14, 2016 6:37:16 am
List:org.apache.incubator.general

The problem with github is that we (ASF) cannot give any guarantees if the main
stuff doesn't originate from our own hardware.

Not whether the ticket system doesn't loose all tickets (didn't that happen in
the past?) nor whether really only IP clean stuff got committed. You e.g. have no clue if someone else uses your email and name in a commit and
pushes it. Everyone else can create a commit with your email and name in GIT, there is no
check. And when pulling in changes, a faked one might get piggy packed and
introduce a backdoor. I know this might be close to paranoid but it is
theoretically possible.

The workflow with git hosted @ASF is btw pretty much exactly the same for
committers. And a PR integration does exist as well. So I don't see what you
miss?

LieGrue, strub

On Friday, 14 October 2016, 13:52, Felix Meschberger <fmes@adobe.com> wrote:

Hi John

This also ties into Mark’s question earlier on.

The OpenWhisk part of the proposal is currently being developed in GitHub and the developers are used to the GitHub flow and features including but not limited to GitHub Issues.

We have discussed this topic before proposing the project and we are all aware on the caveats. But as we write in the proposal, we intend to work with infra and other stakeholders to have repositories in GitHub accepted as primary work repositories before graduation.

Hope that helps.

Regards Felix

Am 14.10.2016 um 12:50 schrieb John D. Ament <john@apache.org>:

Sam,

Can your or someone representing the proposed podling explain why using github as master is preferable to the current mirror strategy in use?

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:29 AM Sam Ruby <rub@intertwingly.net> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Greg Stein <gst@gmail.com>

wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Sam Ruby

<rub@intertwingly.net>

wrote:

Hello everyone,

Attached to this message is a proposed new project - Apache OpenWhisk.

The text of the proposal is included below. Additionally, the

proposal

is

in draft form on the Wiki, where we will make any required changes:

https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWhiskProposal

We look forward to your feedback and input.

OpenWhisk has a first-time-unique request on its Git repository

request.

I

inserted a comment about OpenWhisk's use of a GitHub repository [from Infra's standpoint], and the relation to the Foundation and a possible block on graduation.

If I could get some help in the form of an infrastructure team review of the following plan, I would appreciate it:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5b93ec0517ce7f90c0a467db9fc5e9cd087f1d4d9305c5491198b6c1@%3Cinfrastructure-private.apache.org%3E

Thx, -g

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: gene@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: gene@incubator.apache.org

B‹KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCB•È[œÝXœØÜšX™KK[XZ[ˆÙ[™\˜[][œÝXœØÜšX™P[˜ÝX˜]Ü‹˜\XÚK›Ü™ÃB‘›ÜˆY][Û˜[ÛÛ[X[™ËK[XZ[ˆÙ[™\˜[Z[[˜ÝX˜]Ü‹˜\XÚK›Ü™ÃB