Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Thanks for commit access and the information. Nothing opposed to a fork so lets go with that route to simplify things. The people whom I will be sharing work with are colleagues so we can share a fork and keep things separate. Really appreciate all the help. > On 1 Dec 2016, at 13.19, Daniel

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

> On 01.12.2016, at 12:13, Jacob Larfors wrote: > > Awesome - looks good. Can I also have commit access to this one, or how do we > plan to do this? > > My plan was to create an update branch on this repo and then file a pull > request to get this into master and include

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Awesome - looks good. Can I also have commit access to this one, or how do we plan to do this? My plan was to create an update branch on this repo and then file a pull request to get this into master and include the Jenkins reviewers as Oleg suggested. GitHub user: jlarfors Sent from my

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

> On 01.12.2016, at 11:34, Jacob Larfors wrote: > > All good to delete the jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin-fork repo as it was never > used. Done, and transferred the one with issues and PRs: https://github.com/jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin -- You received this message because you

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

All good to delete the jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin-fork repo as it was never used. On Thursday, 1 December 2016 12:32:59 UTC+2, Daniel Beck wrote: > > > > On 01.12.2016, at 11:17, Jacob Larfors > wrote: > > > > Great, I acknowledge and sounds like a good idea - so please

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

> On 01.12.2016, at 11:17, Jacob Larfors wrote: > > Great, I acknowledge and sounds like a good idea - so please go ahead. Hmmm that didn't work… "jenkinsci already has a repository in the jenkinsci-transfer/klocwork-plugin network" It looks like I'll have to delete the

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Great, I acknowledge and sounds like a good idea - so please go ahead. Thanks, Jacob On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 21:03:00 UTC+2, Daniel Beck wrote: > > > > On 28.11.2016, at 17:44, Jacob Larfors > wrote: > > > > Awesome, and thanks Daniel & Gregory. > > We have

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

> On 28.11.2016, at 17:44, Jacob Larfors wrote: > > Awesome, and thanks Daniel & Gregory. We have control over the klocwork plugin. It currently resides in https://github.com/jenkinsci-transfer/klocwork-plugin I'll rename the existing repo and move this one into jenkinsci

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Hi Oleg, Awesome, and thanks Daniel & Gregory. See you tomorrow. Best Regards, Jacob > On 28 Nov 2016, at 17.35, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > > Hi, > > Just FYI, we have got a reply from Gregory in the separate thread. Now you > have an authorization from the original

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Hi, Just FYI, we have got a reply from Gregory in the separate thread. Now you have an authorization from the original maintainer, hence you can proceed with the release once you are ready. See you tomorrow! Best regards, Oleg 2016-11-28 16:20 GMT+01:00 Jacob Larfors : > Hi

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Hi Oleg, That's great - I saw the meeting summary so thanks for bringing this to light. I spoke with our plugin developer on Friday and we will get the plugin updated and ready for release whilst we wait for a reply from gboissinot and prepare a branch on the jenkinsci project ready for a pull

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Hi Jacob, On Wednesday we agreed with the proposed plan. Here is the meeting summary: http://meetings.jenkins-ci.org/jenkins-meeting/2016/jenkins-meeting.2016-11-23-18.00.html We agreed that I and Daniel will make the last attempt to reach out the original plugin maintainers with a final

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Many thanks for helping so much with this. The plan sounds good to me. My Jenkinsci account is: jlarfors Thanks again, Jacob On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 18:05:20 UTC+1, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > > I have added the the topic to the agenda of the tomorrow's governance > meeting: >

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

I'm personally fine with that plan. For step "4.1", as the plugin is MIT licensed, are we really required to do such non backward compatible change? It's a really good thing to try to reach out, don't get me wrong, totally for it, but it does not work out, then not that a big deal IMO. I guess

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

I have added the the topic to the agenda of the tomorrow's governance meeting: https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-Nov23meeting Jacob, could you please provide your Jenkinsci account? Thanks in advance, Oleg вторник, 22 ноября 2016 г.,

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

In addition to this thread, I have tried to reach out Gregory directly without success. Since he has left his original company as well as his companion from citools org, it is a low chance we can proceed in the common way. I had an f2f discussion with Jacob at Embedded Conference Scandinavia.

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Any revival of this plugin will be appreciated. Unfortunately, we cannot just fork the repository and start releasing from it. It may be considered as a highjacking of the plugin. Plugin maintainers commonly do not sign Jenkins CLA, hence we have no formal permission to do so. I think we

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Ok I tried contacting the other maintainer/user at cittools and his email address for Thales does not work, so I suspect he has left Thales. As there has also been an outstanding pull request since July, and our attempts to contact the people at cittools has failed, I would assume this

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Hi Daniel, appreciate the quick feedback and thanks for the info - that answered another question I had about why the jenkinsci repo even existed. I would prefer to use the jenkinsci repo to avoid any future issues/bottlenecks. I have made one last attempt at contacting cittools because we

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

We cannot grant access to repositories outside the jenkinsci GitHub organization. Which is one of the reasons why we strongly recommend that plugins be maintained in that organization. We can only grant access to https://github.com/jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin and you'd need to sync the existing