-1

There is a good will to return the project to a normal track, and scope it 
around the crypto only.
Yes, there has been some infrastructural and procedural reasons for "forking" 
the crypto code outside Apache and commit the mass of development to that fork,
but the newest code will eventually be committed back to Apache together with 
reorganizing the repositories, which will revive the project.

I believe that a little bit more time is required to figure out the tiny 
details for doing the above, as some mentor's help will be required too.

Kind Regards,
Simeon Aladjem

´╗┐On 10/4/18, 10:30, "Go Yamamoto" <yamamoto...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:

    Hi Nick,
    
    I agree the infrastructure problem you have pointed out have been blocking
    the initial commit, and it blocks everything toward the release.  To solve
    the problem, I think all what we need is the operational management at the
    official github repo.  It is hard to solve the problem technologically
    because Miracl's engineering team (and ours too) want to use CI tools, and
    it means OAuth grants for access by the CI tools must be managed at the
    repository on which they work.
    
    We NTT request to allow for contributors to work at their own fork
    repository.  All the changes on the code happens at local fork repositories
    owned by each contributor, however, the changes at local fork will be
    pull-requested to the official repo, and the operation team at the official
    repo will review the pull-request and merge it to the official.  
    
    If this workflow is OK for everybody here, NTT would like to take the effort
    of operational tasks and managements on the official repo at least until we
    reach the first release. 
    
    I sincerely hope this proposal would contribute in resolving the blocker.
    Please feel free to share your concerns if any.
    
    Regards,
    Go Yamamoto
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Nick Kew [mailto:n...@apache.org] 
    Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:07 AM
    To: dev@milagro.incubator.apache.org
    Subject: Re: [VOTE] Retire Milagro
    
    On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 14:16:09 +0000
    "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
    
    > All,
    > 
    > This is a call to vote to retire the Milagro podling.
    
    +-0.  Subject to change in either direction.
    
    For a long time, this project has not been happening at Apache, and on that
    basis retirement seems appropriate.
    My past attempts to prod it have met with no response[1].
    
    On the other hand, some more promising activity has recently been seen on
    this list, notably with the arrival of NTT folks and an active newcomer who
    I've only just realised isn't an initial committer from the Miracl team!
    
    I have been meaning for some time to try once more to prod it and would be
    reluctant to vote for retirement before doing so.
    I've been doing battle with a failing internet connection, but I've now
    parted company with the ISP in question.
    So hopefully I'll now be fine to review all list traffic since [1] and post
    thoughts within 24 hours.
    
    > Here are the documented problems:
    > 
    > - Development does not happen at Apache.  This is confirmed in changes 
    > like [1] where you are trying to repoint mirrors away from the Apache 
    > hosted repository into a Miracl hosted repository.
    
    At the time the repos were created, there was an issue with folks being less
    than happy with the level of github integration then available.  I touched
    on this in [1], but should no doubt have been clearer.  IF THERE ARE
    INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES HOLDING THINGS BACK, THE TEAM NEEDS TO SPEAK UP!
    
    > - No board report submitted for months.
    
    Indeed, someone from the team needs to take responsibility.
    In the early days I did too much of this myself, but it's not supposed to be
    a mentor task!
    
    [1] Most recently
    http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/milagro-dev/201711.mbox/%3C15102433
    30.26629.45.camel%40mimir.webthing.com%3E
    
    --
    Nick Kew
    
    
    

Reply via email to