|
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [URGENT] Impending deletion of Helm 2 releases and charts buckets
+MattButcher
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via lists.cncf.io <briangrant=google.com@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 7:05:41 AM
To: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Cc: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>; Matt Farina <matt@...>; agupta <agupta@...>; Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>; Priyanka Sharma <psharma@...>; cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>;
Saad Ali <saadali@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [URGENT] Impending deletion of Helm 2 releases and charts buckets
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:02 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris. Just noting that we do have the Special Issues process where $$$ are involved to take technical budget issues to the GB, though it sounds unlikely that this would be an affordable item for the community to sustain. (I am wondering
if there is a stop-gap measure to fund the storage for a short period of time while the deprecation message gets through to users, to stop it falling off a cliff - but there is only any point in doing that if we can effectively encourage migration off of these
resources.)
This has been an issue since at least April 2019. The deprecation message is not getting through.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:20 PM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote:
It would be great to have input from the current Helm maintainers on their issue and public deprecation plan here. +Matt
Farina
Also, this is a big budget item and will likely involve the GB, where the TOC should mostly focus on the technical deprecation plan and how to do this for the overall ecosystem with minimal impact. As I understand it, the storage cost of the charts is
relatively cheap but the bandwidth costs are considerable and would make up a huge chunk of the budget and honestly something usually sponsored by large cloud providers or a CDN, similar to how we handle the Kubernetes project or even other projects like say
jquery.
A simple solution would be to reuse or extend the existing credits that exist for Kubernetes [1] and firm up an ownership plan with the Helm maintainers on when deprecation can happen with a firm date, but this requires collaboration with the Helm maintainers
[2] and the wider community [3]. We can also try to offer some time at the upcoming KubeCon to further make the community aware of the upcoming deprecation, but these things are always tricky for when it comes to widely used software.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:51 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
It does seem like a hard cut-off is going to hurt people without some further action. I can see two ways the CNCF might be able to help:
- Getting the word out. I suspect that a lot of Helm chart creation is done by folks outside of the "Helm community" and maybe the message is not reaching the wider cloud world. This isn't a criticism of the Helm community or the way it communicates,
it's an indicator of how widely used the project is. I think CNCF could help push a message to this wider audience
The affected charts are mainly the ones in the official community repo:
There is a notice in the README.
PRs to the charts are still being merged, though at a lower rate than earlier in the year:
- I'm not clear from the GH thread whether there is already a CNCF owned location that the old locations can be redirected to, but I'd be supportive of CNCF funds being used for that purpose. Is it more-or-less as simple as redirecting URLs
from google-funded resources to community-funded resources?
There is not a CNCF-owned location that I'm aware of.
Regarding redirects:
"The URL to the stable repository has been embedded in Helm since v2.0.0-alpha.2. It's directly to a Google Cloud bucket"
No redirector was put in place.
The project containing the buckets could be moved to a CNCF account.
Does Artifact Hub have a role to play here?
Finally, I can't be the first person to think this thought, but is there some possible way to contact chart owners and tell them about the imminent demise of the current buckets?
Liz
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 07:45, Arvind Gupta < agupta@...> wrote:
I would recommend setting up a URL forwarding from old repos to new repos, so that charts are maintained at new locations but old URL references continue to work.
Thanks,
-Arvind
TOC Folks,
This has the potential for causing a lot of pain to users.
The buckets are scheduled to be deleted on Nov 13, 2020, per the
original deprecation plan. As that date is fast approaching, it is becoming clear that doing so could cause major issues. Per
Brian's comment on the bug " The usage of the charts storage buckets hasn't decreased at all. It's higher than when the deprecation was announced last October. There have been about 3.5 accesses per second
on average over the last 12 hours."
But the hard part to fight is the countless posts/examples on stackoverflow/other sites, and
the many vendors who apparently haven't migrated yet.
Given that and the bucket usage metrics, the fear is that the number of people still using the old repos may be under-estimated, and shutting down the buckets could cause many unanticipated outages. The long
lead time was supposed to be about getting users off, but that result does not appear to be achieved yet.
As TOC, should we consider alternative options such as transitioning ownership of these resources to CNCF to ensure a longer runway for deprecation?
Regards,
Saad Ali
--
|
|
|
Re: [URGENT] Impending deletion of Helm 2 releases and charts buckets
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:02 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: Thanks Chris. Just noting that we do have the Special Issues process where $$$ are involved to take technical budget issues to the GB, though it sounds unlikely that this would be an affordable item for the community to sustain. (I am wondering if there is a stop-gap measure to fund the storage for a short period of time while the deprecation message gets through to users, to stop it falling off a cliff - but there is only any point in doing that if we can effectively encourage migration off of these resources.)
This has been an issue since at least April 2019. The deprecation message is not getting through.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:20 PM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: It would be great to have input from the current Helm maintainers on their issue and public deprecation plan here. +Matt Farina
Also, this is a big budget item and will likely involve the GB, where the TOC should mostly focus on the technical deprecation plan and how to do this for the overall ecosystem with minimal impact. As I understand it, the storage cost of the charts is relatively cheap but the bandwidth costs are considerable and would make up a huge chunk of the budget and honestly something usually sponsored by large cloud providers or a CDN, similar to how we handle the Kubernetes project or even other projects like say jquery.
A simple solution would be to reuse or extend the existing credits that exist for Kubernetes [1] and firm up an ownership plan with the Helm maintainers on when deprecation can happen with a firm date, but this requires collaboration with the Helm maintainers [2] and the wider community [3]. We can also try to offer some time at the upcoming KubeCon to further make the community aware of the upcoming deprecation, but these things are always tricky for when it comes to widely used software.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:51 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: It does seem like a hard cut-off is going to hurt people without some further action. I can see two ways the CNCF might be able to help:
- Getting the word out. I suspect that a lot of Helm chart creation is done by folks outside of the "Helm community" and maybe the message is not reaching the wider cloud world. This isn't a criticism of the Helm community or the way it communicates, it's an indicator of how widely used the project is. I think CNCF could help push a message to this wider audience
The affected charts are mainly the ones in the official community repo:
There is a notice in the README.
PRs to the charts are still being merged, though at a lower rate than earlier in the year:
- I'm not clear from the GH thread whether there is already a CNCF owned location that the old locations can be redirected to, but I'd be supportive of CNCF funds being used for that purpose. Is it more-or-less as simple as redirecting URLs from google-funded resources to community-funded resources?
There is not a CNCF-owned location that I'm aware of.
Regarding redirects: "The URL to the stable repository has been embedded in Helm since v2.0.0-alpha.2. It's directly to a Google Cloud bucket"
No redirector was put in place.
The project containing the buckets could be moved to a CNCF account.
Does Artifact Hub have a role to play here?
Finally, I can't be the first person to think this thought, but is there some possible way to contact chart owners and tell them about the imminent demise of the current buckets?
Liz
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 07:45, Arvind Gupta < agupta@...> wrote: I would recommend setting up a URL forwarding from old repos to new repos, so that charts are maintained at new locations but old URL references continue to work.
Thanks, -Arvind
TOC Folks,
This has the potential for causing a lot of pain to users.
The buckets are scheduled to be deleted on Nov 13, 2020, per the original deprecation plan. As that date is fast approaching, it is becoming clear that doing so could cause major issues. Per Brian's comment on the bug " The usage of the charts storage buckets hasn't decreased at all. It's higher than when the deprecation was announced last October. There have been about 3.5 accesses per second on average over the last 12 hours."
But the hard part to fight is the countless posts/examples on stackoverflow/other sites, and the many vendors who apparently haven't migrated yet.
Given that and the bucket usage metrics, the fear is that the number of people still using the old repos may be under-estimated, and shutting down the buckets could cause many unanticipated outages. The long lead time was supposed to be about getting users off, but that result does not appear to be achieved yet.
As TOC, should we consider alternative options such as transitioning ownership of these resources to CNCF to ensure a longer runway for deprecation?
Regards,
Saad Ali
--
|
|
|
Re: [URGENT] Impending deletion of Helm 2 releases and charts buckets
Thanks Chris. Just noting that we do have the Special Issues process where $$$ are involved to take technical budget issues to the GB, though it sounds unlikely that this would be an affordable item for the community to sustain. (I am wondering if there is a stop-gap measure to fund the storage for a short period of time while the deprecation message gets through to users, to stop it falling off a cliff - but there is only any point in doing that if we can effectively encourage migration off of these resources.)
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:20 PM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: It would be great to have input from the current Helm maintainers on their issue and public deprecation plan here. +Matt Farina
Also, this is a big budget item and will likely involve the GB, where the TOC should mostly focus on the technical deprecation plan and how to do this for the overall ecosystem with minimal impact. As I understand it, the storage cost of the charts is relatively cheap but the bandwidth costs are considerable and would make up a huge chunk of the budget and honestly something usually sponsored by large cloud providers or a CDN, similar to how we handle the Kubernetes project or even other projects like say jquery.
A simple solution would be to reuse or extend the existing credits that exist for Kubernetes [1] and firm up an ownership plan with the Helm maintainers on when deprecation can happen with a firm date, but this requires collaboration with the Helm maintainers [2] and the wider community [3]. We can also try to offer some time at the upcoming KubeCon to further make the community aware of the upcoming deprecation, but these things are always tricky for when it comes to widely used software.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:51 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: It does seem like a hard cut-off is going to hurt people without some further action. I can see two ways the CNCF might be able to help:
- Getting the word out. I suspect that a lot of Helm chart creation is done by folks outside of the "Helm community" and maybe the message is not reaching the wider cloud world. This isn't a criticism of the Helm community or the way it communicates, it's an indicator of how widely used the project is. I think CNCF could help push a message to this wider audience
The affected charts are mainly the ones in the official community repo:
There is a notice in the README.
PRs to the charts are still being merged, though at a lower rate than earlier in the year:
- I'm not clear from the GH thread whether there is already a CNCF owned location that the old locations can be redirected to, but I'd be supportive of CNCF funds being used for that purpose. Is it more-or-less as simple as redirecting URLs from google-funded resources to community-funded resources?
There is not a CNCF-owned location that I'm aware of.
Regarding redirects: "The URL to the stable repository has been embedded in Helm since v2.0.0-alpha.2. It's directly to a Google Cloud bucket"
No redirector was put in place.
The project containing the buckets could be moved to a CNCF account.
Does Artifact Hub have a role to play here?
Finally, I can't be the first person to think this thought, but is there some possible way to contact chart owners and tell them about the imminent demise of the current buckets?
Liz
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 07:45, Arvind Gupta < agupta@...> wrote: I would recommend setting up a URL forwarding from old repos to new repos, so that charts are maintained at new locations but old URL references continue to work.
Thanks, -Arvind
TOC Folks,
This has the potential for causing a lot of pain to users.
The buckets are scheduled to be deleted on Nov 13, 2020, per the original deprecation plan. As that date is fast approaching, it is becoming clear that doing so could cause major issues. Per Brian's comment on the bug " The usage of the charts storage buckets hasn't decreased at all. It's higher than when the deprecation was announced last October. There have been about 3.5 accesses per second on average over the last 12 hours."
But the hard part to fight is the countless posts/examples on stackoverflow/other sites, and the many vendors who apparently haven't migrated yet.
Given that and the bucket usage metrics, the fear is that the number of people still using the old repos may be under-estimated, and shutting down the buckets could cause many unanticipated outages. The long lead time was supposed to be about getting users off, but that result does not appear to be achieved yet.
As TOC, should we consider alternative options such as transitioning ownership of these resources to CNCF to ensure a longer runway for deprecation?
Regards,
Saad Ali
--
|
|
|
Re: [URGENT] Impending deletion of Helm 2 releases and charts buckets
Chris Aniszczyk
It would be great to have input from the current Helm maintainers on their issue and public deprecation plan here. +Matt Farina
Also, this is a big budget item and will likely involve the GB, where the TOC should mostly focus on the technical deprecation plan and how to do this for the overall ecosystem with minimal impact. As I understand it, the storage cost of the charts is relatively cheap but the bandwidth costs are considerable and would make up a huge chunk of the budget and honestly something usually sponsored by large cloud providers or a CDN, similar to how we handle the Kubernetes project or even other projects like say jquery.
A simple solution would be to reuse or extend the existing credits that exist for Kubernetes [1] and firm up an ownership plan with the Helm maintainers on when deprecation can happen with a firm date, but this requires collaboration with the Helm maintainers [2] and the wider community [3]. We can also try to offer some time at the upcoming KubeCon to further make the community aware of the upcoming deprecation, but these things are always tricky for when it comes to widely used software.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:51 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: It does seem like a hard cut-off is going to hurt people without some further action. I can see two ways the CNCF might be able to help:
- Getting the word out. I suspect that a lot of Helm chart creation is done by folks outside of the "Helm community" and maybe the message is not reaching the wider cloud world. This isn't a criticism of the Helm community or the way it communicates, it's an indicator of how widely used the project is. I think CNCF could help push a message to this wider audience
The affected charts are mainly the ones in the official community repo:
There is a notice in the README.
PRs to the charts are still being merged, though at a lower rate than earlier in the year:
- I'm not clear from the GH thread whether there is already a CNCF owned location that the old locations can be redirected to, but I'd be supportive of CNCF funds being used for that purpose. Is it more-or-less as simple as redirecting URLs from google-funded resources to community-funded resources?
There is not a CNCF-owned location that I'm aware of.
Regarding redirects: "The URL to the stable repository has been embedded in Helm since v2.0.0-alpha.2. It's directly to a Google Cloud bucket"
No redirector was put in place.
The project containing the buckets could be moved to a CNCF account.
Does Artifact Hub have a role to play here?
Finally, I can't be the first person to think this thought, but is there some possible way to contact chart owners and tell them about the imminent demise of the current buckets?
Liz
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 07:45, Arvind Gupta < agupta@...> wrote: I would recommend setting up a URL forwarding from old repos to new repos, so that charts are maintained at new locations but old URL references continue to work.
Thanks, -Arvind
TOC Folks,
This has the potential for causing a lot of pain to users.
The buckets are scheduled to be deleted on Nov 13, 2020, per the original deprecation plan. As that date is fast approaching, it is becoming clear that doing so could cause major issues. Per Brian's comment on the bug " The usage of the charts storage buckets hasn't decreased at all. It's higher than when the deprecation was announced last October. There have been about 3.5 accesses per second on average over the last 12 hours."
But the hard part to fight is the countless posts/examples on stackoverflow/other sites, and the many vendors who apparently haven't migrated yet.
Given that and the bucket usage metrics, the fear is that the number of people still using the old repos may be under-estimated, and shutting down the buckets could cause many unanticipated outages. The long lead time was supposed to be about getting users off, but that result does not appear to be achieved yet.
As TOC, should we consider alternative options such as transitioning ownership of these resources to CNCF to ensure a longer runway for deprecation?
Regards,
Saad Ali
|
|
|
Re: [URGENT] Impending deletion of Helm 2 releases and charts buckets
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:51 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: It does seem like a hard cut-off is going to hurt people without some further action. I can see two ways the CNCF might be able to help:
- Getting the word out. I suspect that a lot of Helm chart creation is done by folks outside of the "Helm community" and maybe the message is not reaching the wider cloud world. This isn't a criticism of the Helm community or the way it communicates, it's an indicator of how widely used the project is. I think CNCF could help push a message to this wider audience
The affected charts are mainly the ones in the official community repo:
There is a notice in the README.
PRs to the charts are still being merged, though at a lower rate than earlier in the year:
- I'm not clear from the GH thread whether there is already a CNCF owned location that the old locations can be redirected to, but I'd be supportive of CNCF funds being used for that purpose. Is it more-or-less as simple as redirecting URLs from google-funded resources to community-funded resources?
There is not a CNCF-owned location that I'm aware of.
Regarding redirects: "The URL to the stable repository has been embedded in Helm since v2.0.0-alpha.2. It's directly to a Google Cloud bucket"
No redirector was put in place.
The project containing the buckets could be moved to a CNCF account.
Does Artifact Hub have a role to play here?
Finally, I can't be the first person to think this thought, but is there some possible way to contact chart owners and tell them about the imminent demise of the current buckets?
Liz
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 07:45, Arvind Gupta < agupta@...> wrote: I would recommend setting up a URL forwarding from old repos to new repos, so that charts are maintained at new locations but old URL references continue to work.
Thanks, -Arvind
TOC Folks,
This has the potential for causing a lot of pain to users.
The buckets are scheduled to be deleted on Nov 13, 2020, per the original deprecation plan. As that date is fast approaching, it is becoming clear that doing so could cause major issues. Per Brian's comment on the bug " The usage of the charts storage buckets hasn't decreased at all. It's higher than when the deprecation was announced last October. There have been about 3.5 accesses per second on average over the last 12 hours."
But the hard part to fight is the countless posts/examples on stackoverflow/other sites, and the many vendors who apparently haven't migrated yet.
Given that and the bucket usage metrics, the fear is that the number of people still using the old repos may be under-estimated, and shutting down the buckets could cause many unanticipated outages. The long lead time was supposed to be about getting users off, but that result does not appear to be achieved yet.
As TOC, should we consider alternative options such as transitioning ownership of these resources to CNCF to ensure a longer runway for deprecation?
Regards,
Saad Ali
|
|
|
Re: [URGENT] Impending deletion of Helm 2 releases and charts buckets
It does seem like a hard cut-off is going to hurt people without some further action. I can see two ways the CNCF might be able to help:
- Getting the word out. I suspect that a lot of Helm chart creation is done by folks outside of the "Helm community" and maybe the message is not reaching the wider cloud world. This isn't a criticism of the Helm community or the way it communicates, it's an indicator of how widely used the project is. I think CNCF could help push a message to this wider audience
- I'm not clear from the GH thread whether there is already a CNCF owned location that the old locations can be redirected to, but I'd be supportive of CNCF funds being used for that purpose. Is it more-or-less as simple as redirecting URLs from google-funded resources to community-funded resources?
Does Artifact Hub have a role to play here?
Finally, I can't be the first person to think this thought, but is there some possible way to contact chart owners and tell them about the imminent demise of the current buckets?
Liz
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 07:45, Arvind Gupta < agupta@...> wrote: I would recommend setting up a URL forwarding from old repos to new repos, so that charts are maintained at new locations but old URL references continue to work.
Thanks, -Arvind
TOC Folks,
This has the potential for causing a lot of pain to users.
The buckets are scheduled to be deleted on Nov 13, 2020, per the original deprecation plan. As that date is fast approaching, it is becoming clear that doing so could cause major issues. Per Brian's comment on the bug " The usage of the charts storage buckets hasn't decreased at all. It's higher than when the deprecation was announced last October. There have been about 3.5 accesses per second on average over the last 12 hours."
But the hard part to fight is the countless posts/examples on stackoverflow/other sites, and the many vendors who apparently haven't migrated yet.
Given that and the bucket usage metrics, the fear is that the number of people still using the old repos may be under-estimated, and shutting down the buckets could cause many unanticipated outages. The long lead time was supposed to be about getting users off, but that result does not appear to be achieved yet.
As TOC, should we consider alternative options such as transitioning ownership of these resources to CNCF to ensure a longer runway for deprecation?
Regards,
Saad Ali
|
|
|
Re: [URGENT] Impending deletion of Helm 2 releases and charts buckets
I would recommend setting up a URL forwarding from old repos to new repos, so that charts are maintained at new locations but old URL references continue to work.
Thanks, -Arvind
TOC Folks,
This has the potential for causing a lot of pain to users.
The buckets are scheduled to be deleted on Nov 13, 2020, per the original deprecation plan. As that date is fast approaching, it is becoming clear that doing so could cause major issues. Per Brian's comment on the bug " The usage of the charts storage buckets hasn't decreased at all. It's higher than when the deprecation was announced last October. There have been about 3.5 accesses per second on average over the last 12 hours."
But the hard part to fight is the countless posts/examples on stackoverflow/other sites, and the many vendors who apparently haven't migrated yet.
Given that and the bucket usage metrics, the fear is that the number of people still using the old repos may be under-estimated, and shutting down the buckets could cause many unanticipated outages. The long lead time was supposed to be about getting users off, but that result does not appear to be achieved yet.
As TOC, should we consider alternative options such as transitioning ownership of these resources to CNCF to ensure a longer runway for deprecation?
Regards,
Saad Ali
|
|
|
[URGENT] Impending deletion of Helm 2 releases and charts buckets
TOC Folks,
This has the potential for causing a lot of pain to users.
The buckets are scheduled to be deleted on Nov 13, 2020, per the original deprecation plan. As that date is fast approaching, it is becoming clear that doing so could cause major issues. Per Brian's comment on the bug " The usage of the charts storage buckets hasn't decreased at all. It's higher than when the deprecation was announced last October. There have been about 3.5 accesses per second on average over the last 12 hours."
But the hard part to fight is the countless posts/examples on stackoverflow/other sites, and the many vendors who apparently haven't migrated yet.
Given that and the bucket usage metrics, the fear is that the number of people still using the old repos may be under-estimated, and shutting down the buckets could cause many unanticipated outages. The long lead time was supposed to be about getting users off, but that result does not appear to be achieved yet.
As TOC, should we consider alternative options such as transitioning ownership of these resources to CNCF to ensure a longer runway for deprecation?
Regards,
Saad Ali
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Buildpacks to move to incubation
Dave Zolotusky
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:18 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Cloud native "reference/demo" application
I am using this list as it most likely reaches the widest audience in the CNCF.
In recent discussions in the app delivery SIG we came to the conclusion that a reference application would make sense that a) has most of the characteristics of real world applications b) can be used to demonstrate good
practices and also how certain CNCF tools can be used to solve common problems.
Having a reference application – or multiple - when we are talking about app delivery makes a lot of sense.
Looking at the most widely used applications you undoubtedly end up with Hipstershop, Sockshop or one of their variants. While these apps are nice to demo what a cloud-native application can look like, they also miss
key characteristics like stateful workloads, third party integrations, secrets, multi-stage configurations, databases, …. .
I also assume that many CNCF project have their own demo applications to demonstrate their capabilities.
Alexis made the proposal to fork one of more of the demo applications over in a CNCF demo-apps org. This, however, only makes sense if there is active development on this demo. It might be even better to have the demo
app together with the development community behind actively participate in the CNCF – by e.g. donating the app as a sandbox project.
So, to get more concrete, a couple of questions to get feedback on:
- Do you think it makes sense to have a cloud-native demo app?
- If you run a project to you have an app for demos and would you want to contribute to a joined demo app?
- If you think it makes sense, what would be your preferred idea to move this forward (donate, fork, create new ….)
Obviously, as this idea matures this need direction and discussion in the TOC. I am using this email to kick off the discussion and collect some first data points.
// Alois
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received
it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Buildpacks to move to incubation
+1 NB.
As the lead reviewer for the upcoming sig-security assessment, the project appears to have done a fair amount of due diligence from a precursory look at the prepared draft.
Andres
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Buildpacks to move to incubation
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
+1 nb +1 binding +1 binding -alena.
On Sep 30, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
+1 nb From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Sheng Liang via lists.cncf.io" <sheng=rancher.com@...>
Reply-To: <sheng@...>
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 2:00 PM
To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated +1 binding From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply-To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 1:25 PM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated +1 binding
On Sep 30, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
+1 binding
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply-To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 1:25 PM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
+1 binding
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Sep 30, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Buildpacks to move to incubation
+1, binding
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Li, Xiang via lists.cncf.io <x.li=alibaba-inc.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 12:37:06 PM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>; chris@... <chris@...>
Cc: Sheng Liang <sheng@...>; justin.cormack@... <justin.cormack@...>; Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Buildpacks to move to incubation
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Adam FitzGerald via lists.cncf.io<adam.fitzgerald=hashicorp.com@...>
日 期：2020年10月09日 03:17:29
收件人：<chris@...>
抄 送：<sheng@...>; justin.cormack@...<justin.cormack@...>; Amye Scavarda Perrin<ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC<cncf-toc@...>
主 题：Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Buildpacks to move to incubation
+1 non-binding
Regards
Adam
+1 binding
Thanks to all the people who helped me with due diligence for this project.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 10:18 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
Siddharth Bhadri
+1 NB
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply to: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Friday, 9 October 2020 at 1:55 AM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
+1 binding
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Sep 30, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Sep 30, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Buildpacks to move to incubation
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Adam FitzGerald via lists.cncf.io<adam.fitzgerald=hashicorp.com@...>
日 期：2020年10月09日 03:17:29
收件人：<chris@...>
抄 送：<sheng@...>; justin.cormack@...<justin.cormack@...>; Amye Scavarda Perrin<ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC<cncf-toc@...>
主 题：Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Buildpacks to move to incubation
+1 non-binding
Regards Adam
+1 binding
Thanks to all the people who helped me with due diligence for this project.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 10:18 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Buildpacks to move to incubation
+1 non-binding
Regards Adam
+1 binding
Thanks to all the people who helped me with due diligence for this project.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 10:18 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
