Another (minor) consideration is the donation will be by way of SGA that specifies exact git shas. Those will be what are imported into the Apache repos. Presumably the shas specified are not from this fork-in-progress. I see no problem doing package munging and various other things at this time to stage the changes for later cherry picking into the new Apache repos, though. The SGA would grant rights to the base code and subsequent changes will be picked over and committed by folks with ICLAs on file.
An alternative could be to release depending on templates in the old namespace. It's fine for projects going through incubation to not have everything in place up front. A release in this state might pass muster. That said, why not wait a week or so and have a grant on file, packages fixed up, and perfect clarity? > On Aug 20, 2016, at 9:18 AM, 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. >> >>
