Hi Pat, I must've misunderstood. I thought we were pushing for release before template grant is approved. This sounds much better. Thanks.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: > Chan: > > Thanks but I think we agreed to hold the release until the template grant > meaning we merge your changes and publish the gallery linking to Apache > hosted templates. > > All your work is still important and I’d publish them to your personal > github account in prep for a PR to Apache when the grant comes through. I > expect the only significant diff on the PRs to be the imports, build.sbt, > and copyright notices, we can carry this conversation to these future PRs. > If the grant takes too long we can revisit release requirements. At least > everyone can see what a template is and why it is confusing this > conversation. > > Everyone: > > I hope people appreciate that the templates do not claim org.apache or > oi.prediction namespace in any code *ever*. They are written to a dummy > namespace called org.template (or org.test or other in examples/) and are > expected to be modified by the user if desired. They are not like PIO > itself, which had to change namespace. The copyrights notice changes from > Tappingstone to Apache but afaik that will not affect templates forked > before the grant (by definition all forked templates) and therefore is > required only by Apache rules. > > They are also never released in binary form. It is integral to the > workflow that they be built from source. > > > On Aug 21, 2016, at 8:44 AM, Chan Lee <chanlee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I don't have a problem putting my modified fork in the new gallery. As Pat > already mentioned, they only modify the "calls" on package namespace. If > there are no objections, I'll clean them up and them in the new gallery > with pio_min_version as 0.10. Once the donation grant is done, we can > move/apply the changes in the Apache repo. > > Thanks, > Chan > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > 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. > >> > > > >
