Ah, ok I see the misunderstanding. I'm not talking about claiming org.apache on template code I’m talking about *calling* the new org.apache code in PIO from the templates. The copyright notice and license of the templates will not be modified, only the pio lib namespace *used* by the templates.
There should be no issue with this since it is basically changing import statements and build.sbt. On Aug 20, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Suneel Marthi <smar...@apache.org> wrote: I concur with Andy. On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think you should author code in the org.apache namespace that has > not gone through proper IP clearance channels. This came up with Gearpump > before it went into incubation. They dropped code on GitHub in the > org.apache package namespace. I asked if that was proper. The advice > received was it was not, because it did not originate from the foundation > through the proper processes. We asked them to change to something like > io.gearpump (IIRC) and they were happy to comply with the request. > > If the release you want to make depends on templates and those templates > have not yet been donated and imported, I think you should wait. If you > post a release of PIO that depends on templates in this uncertain condition > I'm afraid I would need to vote -1 (binding) until this is resolved or we > have clarification it's ok. > >> On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: >> >> No misunderstanding—so far at least :-) >> >> What we want to do it host the templates on Github as non-Apache > projects until the donation paper-work is done. This will remove a blocking > issue—templates that work with the new org namespace and have some (even if > incomplete) integration tests. We are thinking about the 7 mentioned in > this Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIO-24 >> >> If you want to push them to Github we can work from that. This is > completely non-Apache but with Apache licenses we should be on sound legal > ground. PIO was designed with template forking as part of the usage model. >> >> If you have any problem with this, that’s fine. I’ll start making the > same changes you’ve done. I have no problem assuming responsibility since I > already maintain a couple external templates. I just want to get a release > of PIO done. >> >> >> On Aug 18, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Chan Lee <chanlee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Pat, >> >> I think there may have been a misunderstanding. The work I've done is > only local: >> 1) I've cloned the 10 official PredictionIO templates and changed the > org namespace locally. >> 2) I've added some tests in the main repo to make sure the templates are > compatible with the latest release. >> >> As of now, I don't have write access to PredictionIO org repos, and the > gallery certainly shouldn't list my fork as the "official" template. So if > the release must happen before template donation, I would make a PR to each > of the template repos to change org namespace and update minimum PIO > version as 0.10. I will leave out the tests for now. >> >> But personally, I think it would be better if we wait for the legal > grant issue to be resolved, so that it is clearer how template code should > be managed. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com > <mailto:p...@occamsmachete.com>> wrote: >> I think we are not waiting for the official template donation to release > PIO, can you point me to the templates you have working? I’ll make sure > they get added to the new gallery. We can push them to Apache once the > grant is done. Thanks for the help. >> >> >
