Actually ci-management needs a bit of a clarifier. I’ll write something up more formally for community comment and TSC approval but until then, here is the background.
As everyone is aware the scrutiny being applied to proposals last June with 30 projects going through simultaneously focused more on project fit than operational details. This is one of those areas where real-world utilization differs from what the TSC approved last year in China. It has just been sitting dormant until now. Technically ci-management is not an integration repo. Instead it belongs to the LF Rel-Ops team and not to the community. To date no one outside of the LF team has been granted commit approval privs. The fact that the ci-management repo was listed as a repo on Integration’s original project proposal was because they do indeed need it to do their work. The fact it was approved "as is” is just another of the many oversights from the initial batch of project approvals that needs to be corrected. Such are the growing pains of a new open-source community. :-) As I said I’ll write something more formal up for comment and approval. Best Regards, -kenny Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager [email protected] 510.766.5945 > On Jan 22, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Kenny Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > > None other than I didn’t move them down when I was editing the json file :-) > I’ll fix it and send another pull request, but I’ll wait for a bit to see if > anyone else sees changes that need to be made. > > Best Regards, > -kenny > > Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 510.766.5945 > >> On Jan 22, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Gildas Lanilis <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Kenny, >> >> According to Repositories and Resources Wiki page repos such as >> ci-management, demo, oparent belong into Integration project >> <https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resources+and+Repositories#ResourcesandRepositories-Integration> >> According to Bitergia (cf screenshot below), these 3 repos belong to >> “ONAP-General” which does not really relates to an ONAP project. >> <image001.jpg> >> Any reasons? I think these 3 repos should belong to Integration, and we >> should get rid of “ONAP-General”. >> >> Thanks, >> Gildas >> ONAP Release Manager >> 1 415 238 6287 >> >
_______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
