cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

I don't think it's a loophole. It appears to be by design. The Sandbox guidelines (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) clearly state that one of the goals of Sandbox is to:

By Michael Ducy · #2615 ·

Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

Yes, that’s how I read Eduardo’s question as well - one of ensuring a loophole doesn’t exist. - Lee Sent from my mobile

By Lee Calcote · #2614 ·

Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

I think Eduardo's point is that it looks like getting to incubation through sandbox is easier than just entering directly via incubation. I don't think that should be the case.

By Brian Grant · #2613 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

(in reponse to Justin's comment) Though Harbor may not be the only solution to a private registry, thousands of users choose Harbor to manage container images in their production

By Haining Zhang · #2612 ·

Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

To add to what Chris said, and responding directly to: "since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder). “ The above is not

By Quinton Hoole · #2611 ·

Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

We decided not to put any timelines on anything in the beginning as each project is going to be different at its maturity stage. There are projects that may have decent adoption but low maintainer

By Chris Aniszczyk · #2610 ·

Sandbox projects and timing requirements

Hi, Why Sandbox projects don't have a minimum time of requirement before to try to move to incubation ? I see that Harbor joined as a Sandbox project on July 31 and just after 3 months moving forward

By Eduardo Silva · #2609 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 non-binding

By Igor Mameshin · #2608 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 agree to what Justin said.

By Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> · #2607 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 nb -matt

By Matt.Baldwin@... · #2606 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

-1 nb I understand the need for container registries in a containerized environment, but I'm not sold Harbor being the solution for most people's needs when they need to run their own

By Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> · #2605 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 non-binding

By Lee Calcote · #2604 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 non-binding -- Shea Stewart, Partner Arctiq: Intelligent Architecture shea.stewart@... +1-647-972-5191 http://www.arctiq.ca

By Shea Stewart · #2603 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 non-binding

By Haining Zhang · #2602 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 non-binding.

By alan.fraser@... · #2601 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 non binding

By Liz Rice · #2600 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 binding From:Chris Aniszczyk To:CNCF TOC, Date:2018-11-06 06:27:26 Subject:[cncf-toc] [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level

By Quinton Hoole · #2599 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 binding -- Thanks, Sonya - Sonya Koptyev | Director of Evangelism | m: +1 425 505 0100

By sonya@... · #2598 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 non-binding Chris Short Web | Newsletter | Twitter

By Chris Short · #2597 ·

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

+1 non-binding --------------------------------------- Best Regards. Jimmy Song(宋净超) Developer Advocate Ant Financial CNCF Ambassador Co-founder of ServiceMesher community WeChat:

By Jimmy Song <jimmysong@...> · #2596 ·

5381 - 5400 of 7995

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms