Ok, I don't see a problem with that.
> On Aug 20, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: > > 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. >
