It's no problem at all. I would like you all to be successful.
> On Aug 20, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: > > Thanks Andy. Very good to hear. I think Donald is taking lead in SF last I > heard. As I said not trying to dump work on you :-) > > > On Aug 20, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > With respect to my estimation of getting that SGA in about a week, I am > optimistic we can turn that around. I will do what I can to drive it. > > There will be no problem with third party (or templates of any provenance) > calling PIO code in an org.apache namespace going forward, of course. > > I also don't think this is particularly new ground for Apache. > >> On Aug 20, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: >> >> "a week or so” is the first I’ve heard of an order of magnitude and would >> agree if that’s true. I’ll remove the suggestion but I think there is a >> bigger issue here. >> >> Understood about what would be granted and it would not be these modified >> templates but that’s that way the PIO ecosystem is meant to work. Templates >> will be modified and will go back into the gallery with their “improvements” >> so these templates modified to work with PIO could live side-by-side with >> the donated ones (and may yet if someone else does an “improvement”). I’ve >> heard nothing said here to contradict that and would be very disappointed if >> I did since it is one of the bigger features of PIO IMO. It encourages this >> type of ecosystem. >> >> BTW this is what we should hope will happen with non-apache templates. We >> should be reaching out to template maintainers (I’ll do this) to get them to >> use the Apache release code and add their templates to the gallery. If not, >> since all the ones I’ve seen have Apache licenses, anyone is free to fork >> and do these mods then put them in the gallery. >> >> Sorry if this makes people think in new ways, I realize the notion of >> templates doesn’t have many precedents in Apache so we are on somewhat new >> territory, though this has been done many times by other OSS projects. >> >> >> On Aug 20, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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. >
