|
Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation
+1 non-binding.
--
Anjana Fernando
Director
WSO2 Inc. | http://wso2.com
lean . enterprise . middleware
+1 non-binding.
--
Anjana Fernando
Director
WSO2 Inc. | http://wso2.com
lean . enterprise . middleware
|
By
Anjana Fernando
·
#2616
·
|
|
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:
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
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.
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
(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
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
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
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.
+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
-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
+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
+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
+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
+1 non-binding
Chris Short
Web | Newsletter | Twitter
|
By
Chris Short
·
#2597
·
|