For the runtimes specifically, if it is technically feasible I think it
would be better to organize around 1 git repo per language.
That repo could contain multiple runtime variants with different degrees of
maturity. Several of the runtime repos already contain multiple variants
(nodejs, php, python). Can that pattern work for go too?
--dave
From: Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date: 12/12/2018 07:26 AM
Subject: Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at
init time
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 <mich...@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
> mich...@sciabarra.com
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@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 <mich...@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
> > mich...@sciabarra.com
> >
> > ----- Original message -----
> > From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@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
> > <mich...@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
<csantan...@gmail.com>
