Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Ariel Weisberg]

Hi,

Strong +1 as well. It's a pretty critical dependency in the path of testing and 
committing changes. Supporting integration points for alternative distributions 
of Cassandra is something I think we should generally be supportive as it's 
generally an opportunity to make things more modular and testable anyways.

Ariel

On Wed, May 15, 2024, at 10:23 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote:
> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under governance of 
> the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well as for local 
> testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our muscle on IP 
> clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't track down 
> every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be worth 
> revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
> 
> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer have 
> both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos, so 
> this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part. Structurally, 
> however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s) long-term to have 
> ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong receptivity to that 
> donation in the past but the IP clearance was the primary hurdle.
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
> 
> https://github.com/riptano/ccm
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Josh McKenzie]

Sounds like we have a general consensus from the project on being willing to 
accept the donation, should the current rights owners be interested in said 
donation.

> We've been working on this along with the python-driver (just haven't raised 
> it yet).
Which they indicate they are. :)

I'll follow up on this topic offline w/Mick. Thanks everyone for the good 
conversation and feedback on it.

~Josh

On Mon, May 20, 2024, at 2:36 PM, Jordan West wrote:
> I would also love to see CCM as an official side project. It is important to 
> the project and I personally use it regularly. 
> 
> Jordan
> 
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 7:55 AM Josh McKenzie  wrote:
>> __
>>> We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do with the 
>>> drivers.  I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no trickery 
>>> happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and have a rough 
>>> direction sketched out for when someone else comes along wanting to add 
>>> support for their proprietary product.
>> IMO as long as it's documented well at the outset and we have plans to 
>> slowly refactor to move it to clean boundaries (epic in JIRA anyone <3) so 
>> it can be extracted into a separately maintained module by folks that need 
>> it, I think we'd be in great shape. That'd also pave a path for others 
>> wanting to add support for their proprietary products as well. Win-win.
>> 
>> There's always this chicken or egg problem w/things like ccm. Do people not 
>> contribute to it because it's out of the umbrella, or is it out of the 
>> umbrella because people don't need to contribute to it?
>> 
>> I hadn't thought about other subprojects relying on it. That's a very good 
>> point.
>> 
>> On Thu, May 16, 2024, at 4:48 AM, Jacek Lewandowski wrote:
>>> +1 (my personal opinion)
>>> 
>>> How to deal with the DSE-supporting code is a separate discussion IMO
>>> 
>>> - - -- --- -  -
>>> Jacek Lewandowski
>>> 
>>> 
>>> czw., 16 maj 2024 o 10:21 Berenguer Blasi  
>>> napisał(a):
 __
 +1 ccm is super useful
 
 On 16/5/24 10:09, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 16:24, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
>> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under 
>> governance of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as 
>> well as for local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience 
>> w/our muscle on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where 
>> we can't track down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like 
>> it might be worth revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
>> 
>> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer 
>> have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and 
>> repos, so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part. 
>> Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s) 
>> long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong 
>> receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the 
>> primary hurdle.
>> 
>> Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
>> 
>> https://github.com/riptano/ccm
> 
> 
> 
> We've been working on this along with the python-driver (just haven't 
> raised it yet).  It is recognised, like the python-driver, as a key 
> dependency that would best be in the project.
> 
> Obtaining the CLAs should be much easier, the contributors to ccm are 
> less diverse, being more the people we know already.
> 
> We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do with 
> the drivers.  I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no 
> trickery happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and 
> have a rough direction sketched out for when someone else comes along 
> wanting to add support for their proprietary product.  We also don't want 
> to be pushing downstream users to be having to create their own forks 
> either.
> 
> Great to see general consensus (so far) in receiving it :) 
>  
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Jordan West]

I would also love to see CCM as an official side project. It is important
to the project and I personally use it regularly.

Jordan

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 7:55 AM Josh McKenzie  wrote:

> We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do with
> the drivers.  I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no trickery
> happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and have a rough
> direction sketched out for when someone else comes along wanting to add
> support for their proprietary product.
>
> IMO as long as it's documented well at the outset and we have plans to
> slowly refactor to move it to clean boundaries (epic in JIRA anyone <3) so
> it can be extracted into a separately maintained module by folks that need
> it, I think we'd be in great shape. That'd also pave a path for others
> wanting to add support for their proprietary products as well. Win-win.
>
> There's always this chicken or egg problem w/things like ccm. Do people
> not contribute to it because it's out of the umbrella, or is it out of the
> umbrella because people don't need to contribute to it?
>
> I hadn't thought about other subprojects relying on it. That's a very good
> point.
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2024, at 4:48 AM, Jacek Lewandowski wrote:
>
> +1 (my personal opinion)
>
> How to deal with the DSE-supporting code is a separate discussion IMO
>
> - - -- --- -  -
> Jacek Lewandowski
>
>
> czw., 16 maj 2024 o 10:21 Berenguer Blasi 
> napisał(a):
>
>
> +1 ccm is super useful
> On 16/5/24 10:09, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 16:24, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
>
> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under governance
> of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well as for
> local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our muscle
> on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't track
> down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be worth
> revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
>
> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer
> have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos,
> so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part.
> Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s)
> long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong
> receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the
> primary hurdle.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
>
> https://github.com/riptano/ccm
>
>
>
>
> We've been working on this along with the python-driver (just haven't
> raised it yet).  It is recognised, like the python-driver, as a key
> dependency that would best be in the project.
>
> Obtaining the CLAs should be much easier, the contributors to ccm are less
> diverse, being more the people we know already.
>
> We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do with
> the drivers.  I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no trickery
> happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and have a rough
> direction sketched out for when someone else comes along wanting to add
> support for their proprietary product.  We also don't want to be pushing
> downstream users to be having to create their own forks either.
>
> Great to see general consensus (so far) in receiving it :)
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Josh McKenzie]

> We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do with the 
> drivers.  I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no trickery 
> happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and have a rough 
> direction sketched out for when someone else comes along wanting to add 
> support for their proprietary product.
IMO as long as it's documented well at the outset and we have plans to slowly 
refactor to move it to clean boundaries (epic in JIRA anyone <3) so it can be 
extracted into a separately maintained module by folks that need it, I think 
we'd be in great shape. That'd also pave a path for others wanting to add 
support for their proprietary products as well. Win-win.

There's always this chicken or egg problem w/things like ccm. Do people not 
contribute to it because it's out of the umbrella, or is it out of the umbrella 
because people don't need to contribute to it?

I hadn't thought about other subprojects relying on it. That's a very good 
point.

On Thu, May 16, 2024, at 4:48 AM, Jacek Lewandowski wrote:
> +1 (my personal opinion)
> 
> How to deal with the DSE-supporting code is a separate discussion IMO
> 
> - - -- --- -  -
> Jacek Lewandowski
> 
> 
> czw., 16 maj 2024 o 10:21 Berenguer Blasi  
> napisał(a):
>> __
>> +1 ccm is super useful
>> 
>> On 16/5/24 10:09, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 16:24, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
 Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under governance 
 of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well as for 
 local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our muscle 
 on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't track 
 down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be worth 
 revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
 
 For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer 
 have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and 
 repos, so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part. 
 Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s) 
 long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong 
 receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the 
 primary hurdle.
 
 Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
 
 https://github.com/riptano/ccm
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We've been working on this along with the python-driver (just haven't 
>>> raised it yet).  It is recognised, like the python-driver, as a key 
>>> dependency that would best be in the project.
>>> 
>>> Obtaining the CLAs should be much easier, the contributors to ccm are less 
>>> diverse, being more the people we know already.
>>> 
>>> We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do with the 
>>> drivers.  I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no trickery 
>>> happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and have a rough 
>>> direction sketched out for when someone else comes along wanting to add 
>>> support for their proprietary product.  We also don't want to be pushing 
>>> downstream users to be having to create their own forks either.
>>> 
>>> Great to see general consensus (so far) in receiving it :) 
>>>  

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Jacek Lewandowski]

+1 (my personal opinion)

How to deal with the DSE-supporting code is a separate discussion IMO

- - -- --- -  -
Jacek Lewandowski


czw., 16 maj 2024 o 10:21 Berenguer Blasi 
napisał(a):

> +1 ccm is super useful
> On 16/5/24 10:09, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 16:24, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
>
>> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under
>> governance of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well
>> as for local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our
>> muscle on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't
>> track down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be
>> worth revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
>>
>> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer
>> have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos,
>> so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part.
>> Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s)
>> long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong
>> receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the
>> primary hurdle.
>>
>> Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
>>
>> https://github.com/riptano/ccm
>>
>
>
>
> We've been working on this along with the python-driver (just haven't
> raised it yet).  It is recognised, like the python-driver, as a key
> dependency that would best be in the project.
>
> Obtaining the CLAs should be much easier, the contributors to ccm are less
> diverse, being more the people we know already.
>
> We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do with
> the drivers.  I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no trickery
> happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and have a rough
> direction sketched out for when someone else comes along wanting to add
> support for their proprietary product.  We also don't want to be pushing
> downstream users to be having to create their own forks either.
>
> Great to see general consensus (so far) in receiving it :)
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Berenguer Blasi]

+1 ccm is super useful

On 16/5/24 10:09, Mick Semb Wever wrote:



On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 16:24, Josh McKenzie  wrote:

Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under
governance of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI
as well as for local testing for many devs, and we now have more
experience w/our muscle on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing
subprojects where we can't track down every single contributor to
get an ICLA, seems like it might be worth revisiting the topic of
donation of ccm to Apache.

For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after
transfer have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the
projects and repos, so this isn't about any response to any
behavior on their part. Structurally, however, it'd be better for
the health of the project(s) long-term to have ccm promoted in. As
far as I know there was strong receptivity to that donation in the
past but the IP clearance was the primary hurdle.

Anyone have any thoughts for or against?

https://github.com/riptano/ccm




We've been working on this along with the python-driver (just haven't 
raised it yet).  It is recognised, like the python-driver, as a key 
dependency that would best be in the project.


Obtaining the CLAs should be much easier, the contributors to ccm are 
less diverse, being more the people we know already.


We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do 
with the drivers.  I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no 
trickery happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and 
have a rough direction sketched out for when someone else comes along 
wanting to add support for their proprietary product.  We also don't 
want to be pushing downstream users to be having to create their own 
forks either.


Great to see general consensus (so far) in receiving it :)

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Mick Semb Wever]

On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 16:24, Josh McKenzie  wrote:

> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under governance
> of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well as for
> local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our muscle
> on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't track
> down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be worth
> revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
>
> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer
> have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos,
> so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part.
> Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s)
> long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong
> receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the
> primary hurdle.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
>
> https://github.com/riptano/ccm
>



We've been working on this along with the python-driver (just haven't
raised it yet).  It is recognised, like the python-driver, as a key
dependency that would best be in the project.

Obtaining the CLAs should be much easier, the contributors to ccm are less
diverse, being more the people we know already.

We do still have the issues of DSE-supporting code in it, as we do with the
drivers.  I doubt any of us strongly object to it: there's no trickery
happening here on the user; but we should be aware of it and have a rough
direction sketched out for when someone else comes along wanting to add
support for their proprietary product.  We also don't want to be pushing
downstream users to be having to create their own forks either.

Great to see general consensus (so far) in receiving it :)

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[David Capwell]

Yes please!

> On May 15, 2024, at 2:23 PM, Bret McGuire  wrote:
> 
>Very much agreed Paulo; I was musing on the idea of adding Docker support 
> to ccm recently as well.  We'd want to preserve the current ability to work 
> with releases (and Github branches) but I very much like the idea of adding 
> Docker support as a new feature.
> 
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:56 PM Paulo Motta  > wrote:
>> As much as I'd like to remove the dependency on ccm I think we'll stick with 
>> it for a bit, so +1 on moving under the project umbrella.
>> 
>> In the long term it would be nice to modernize integration test suites to 
>> use containers instead of processes for more flexibility and fewer 
>> dependencies for local development. Perhaps an incremental way to do that 
>> would be to add a docker backend to ccm.
>> 
>> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:25 PM Bret McGuire > > wrote:
>>>Speaking only for myself I _love_ this idea.  The various drivers use 
>>> ccm extensively in their integration test suites so having this tool 
>>> in-house and actively looked after would be very beneficial for our work.
>>> 
>>>- Bret -
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM Josh McKenzie >> > wrote:
 Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under governance 
 of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well as for 
 local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our muscle 
 on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't track 
 down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be worth 
 revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
 
 For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer 
 have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and 
 repos, so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part. 
 Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s) 
 long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong 
 receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the 
 primary hurdle.
 
 Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
 
 https://github.com/riptano/ccm
 

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Bret McGuire]

   Very much agreed Paulo; I was musing on the idea of adding Docker
support to ccm recently as well.  We'd want to preserve the current ability
to work with releases (and Github branches) but I very much like the idea
of adding Docker support as a new feature.

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:56 PM Paulo Motta  wrote:

> As much as I'd like to remove the dependency on ccm I think we'll stick
> with it for a bit, so +1 on moving under the project umbrella.
>
> In the long term it would be nice to modernize integration test suites to
> use containers instead of processes for more flexibility and fewer
> dependencies for local development. Perhaps an incremental way to do that
> would be to add a docker backend to ccm.
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:25 PM Bret McGuire 
> wrote:
>
>>Speaking only for myself I _love_ this idea.  The various drivers use
>> ccm extensively in their integration test suites so having this tool
>> in-house and actively looked after would be very beneficial for our work.
>>
>>- Bret -
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM Josh McKenzie 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under
>>> governance of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well
>>> as for local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our
>>> muscle on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't
>>> track down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be
>>> worth revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer
>>> have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos,
>>> so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part.
>>> Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s)
>>> long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong
>>> receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the
>>> primary hurdle.
>>>
>>> Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
>>>
>>> https://github.com/riptano/ccm
>>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Paulo Motta]

As much as I'd like to remove the dependency on ccm I think we'll stick
with it for a bit, so +1 on moving under the project umbrella.

In the long term it would be nice to modernize integration test suites to
use containers instead of processes for more flexibility and fewer
dependencies for local development. Perhaps an incremental way to do that
would be to add a docker backend to ccm.

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:25 PM Bret McGuire  wrote:

>Speaking only for myself I _love_ this idea.  The various drivers use
> ccm extensively in their integration test suites so having this tool
> in-house and actively looked after would be very beneficial for our work.
>
>- Bret -
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM Josh McKenzie 
> wrote:
>
>> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under
>> governance of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well
>> as for local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our
>> muscle on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't
>> track down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be
>> worth revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
>>
>> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer
>> have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos,
>> so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part.
>> Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s)
>> long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong
>> receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the
>> primary hurdle.
>>
>> Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
>>
>> https://github.com/riptano/ccm
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Abe Ratnofsky]

Strong supporter for bringing ccm into the project as well. ccm is necessary 
test infrastructure for multiple subprojects, and Cassandra committers should 
be able to make the changes to ccm that are necessary for their patches.

There's also the security angle: we should work to consolidate our dependencies 
where appropriate, and reduce the risk of supply chain antics.

> On May 15, 2024, at 4:25 PM, Bret McGuire  wrote:
> 
>Speaking only for myself I _love_ this idea.  The various drivers use ccm 
> extensively in their integration test suites so having this tool in-house and 
> actively looked after would be very beneficial for our work.
> 
>- Bret -
> 
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM Josh McKenzie  > wrote:
>> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under governance 
>> of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well as for local 
>> testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our muscle on IP 
>> clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't track down 
>> every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be worth 
>> revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
>> 
>> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer 
>> have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos, 
>> so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part. 
>> Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s) 
>> long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong 
>> receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the 
>> primary hurdle.
>> 
>> Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
>> 
>> https://github.com/riptano/ccm
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Bret McGuire]

   Speaking only for myself I _love_ this idea.  The various drivers use
ccm extensively in their integration test suites so having this tool
in-house and actively looked after would be very beneficial for our work.

   - Bret -

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM Josh McKenzie  wrote:

> Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under governance
> of the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well as for
> local testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our muscle
> on IP clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't track
> down every single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be worth
> revisiting the topic of donation of ccm to Apache.
>
> For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer
> have both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos,
> so this isn't about any response to any behavior on their part.
> Structurally, however, it'd be better for the health of the project(s)
> long-term to have ccm promoted in. As far as I know there was strong
> receptivity to that donation in the past but the IP clearance was the
> primary hurdle.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts for or against?
>
> https://github.com/riptano/ccm
>
>

[DISCUSS] ccm as a subproject

[Josh McKenzie]

Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under governance of 
the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well as for local 
testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our muscle on IP 
clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't track down every 
single contributor to get an ICLA, seems like it might be worth revisiting the 
topic of donation of ccm to Apache.

For what it's worth, Sylvain originally and then DataStax after transfer have 
both been incredible and receptive stewards of the projects and repos, so this 
isn't about any response to any behavior on their part. Structurally, however, 
it'd be better for the health of the project(s) long-term to have ccm promoted 
in. As far as I know there was strong receptivity to that donation in the past 
but the IP clearance was the primary hurdle.

Anyone have any thoughts for or against?

https://github.com/riptano/ccm