Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

Hi Edward Absolutely. Thanks for adding yourself. Regards Felix > Am 07.11.2016 um 21:11 schrieb Edward J. Yoon : > > Awesome. Let me in. > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I have made some additions to

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

Awesome. Let me in. On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Felix Meschberger 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 >

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

Ah, I didnt know ASF infra is ok to let Github as main source repo for a podling. I stand corrected. - Henry On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Henry Saputra > wrote: > > > I second John, about Github

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > I second John, about Github uses. > > The statement "As a community we would like to keep the master repository > as well as issue tracking on GitHub > " at currently stand

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

I spoke with Greg very briefly about the situation with OpenWhisk. He pointed out a couple of things to me. - He presented essentially an either/or situation to the podling, essentially either you can stay on your existing and wait to graduate when ASF can handle github as master, or use what

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

I second John, about Github uses. The statement "As a community we would like to keep the master repository as well as issue tracking on GitHub " at currently stand is a no-no and putting in proposal would make it as goal which at this time not an option

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:49 AM Felix Meschberger 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

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

Perfect, already added to the wiki. Thanks, Felix. On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote: > Hi Sergio > > Pleased to meet you and thanks for offering to become a mentor. That helps. > > Feel free to add yourself to the proposal > > Thanks > Felix > > Am

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

Hi Sergio Pleased to meet you and thanks for offering to become a mentor. That helps. Feel free to add yourself to the proposal Thanks Felix Am 04.11.2016 um 15:57 schrieb Sergio Fernández >: Hi Felix, most of the ASF project have successfully

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

Hi Felix, most of the ASF project have successfully manage to keep using GitHub for PRs, having the master git repository in ASF-controlled infrastructure. In the end it doesn't represent that big break on the common workflows. But definitely something the podling could try to address during

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

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:

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

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 wrote: > Hi all > > I have made some additions to the OpenWhisk Proposal [1]: > > - restructured the API Gateway

[DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

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’s dependency on OpenSSL - added a