|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
Whoops, thanks for pointing that out. I count 3 PRs out of the last 18 or so that violated the governance rules about requiring a super-maintainer review, all minor. We're still adjusting to some of
Whoops, thanks for pointing that out. I count 3 PRs out of the last 18 or so that violated the governance rules about requiring a super-maintainer review, all minor. We're still adjusting to some of
|
By
William Morgan
·
#1928
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
0 (non binding)
The governance seems confused and I am not sure it technically meets the criteria of number of committers.
The governance doc[1] states "All PRs must receive approval from at least one
0 (non binding)
The governance seems confused and I am not sure it technically meets the criteria of number of committers.
The governance doc[1] states "All PRs must receive approval from at least one
|
By
Justin Cormack
·
#1927
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
Most that we're aware of run Linkerd per host. There are a couple companies that use it as a sidecar, and don't Linkerd's resource requirements heavyweight relative to the existing footprint of their
Most that we're aware of run Linkerd per host. There are a couple companies that use it as a sidecar, and don't Linkerd's resource requirements heavyweight relative to the existing footprint of their
|
By
William Morgan
·
#1926
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
Yes. I can't speak for the other community folks, but Buoyant is planning its Q2 Linkerd roadmap right now. Dark traffic, rate limiting, backup requests, configurable communication policy in namerd,
Yes. I can't speak for the other community folks, but Buoyant is planning its Q2 Linkerd roadmap right now. Dark traffic, rate limiting, backup requests, configurable communication policy in namerd,
|
By
William Morgan
·
#1925
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
+1 (non-binding)
By
Robert Panzer
·
#1924
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
At the moment, it looks like linkerd maybe still has more user mindshare, though envoy has more
At the moment, it looks like linkerd maybe still has more user mindshare, though envoy has more
|
By
Brian Grant
·
#1923
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
Hi, William.
Are there any specific large areas of upcoming development in linkerd, which would provide an opportunity for onboarding new contributors? Most post-1.3.0 (reasonably) looks like fixes
Hi, William.
Are there any specific large areas of upcoming development in linkerd, which would provide an opportunity for onboarding new contributors? Most post-1.3.0 (reasonably) looks like fixes
|
By
Brian Grant
·
#1922
·
|
|
Re: TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018
I am on vacation this week and will not be dailing in 😀
I am on vacation this week and will not be dailing in 😀
|
By
Ken Owens
·
#1921
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
+1 (non-binding)
By
cncf.io@...
·
#1920
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
+1 (non-binding)
By
Ben Hoyt
·
#1919
·
|
|
Re: TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018
and some folks have said the google short link isn't working, here's the full link:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IwxTIXta88Mb2UIj3TFiKKC7Vl2_BC1GfsBTdgwXqOk/edit?usp=sharing
--
Chris
and some folks have said the google short link isn't working, here's the full link:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IwxTIXta88Mb2UIj3TFiKKC7Vl2_BC1GfsBTdgwXqOk/edit?usp=sharing
--
Chris
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#1918
·
|
|
Re: TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018
oh... and by 3/19/2018 I meant 3/20/2018, the CNCF TOC meeting is tomorrow :)
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
oh... and by 3/19/2018 I meant 3/20/2018, the CNCF TOC meeting is tomorrow :)
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#1917
·
|
|
TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018
Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7
We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working
Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7
We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#1916
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
+1 non-binding
By
Richard Hartmann
·
#1915
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
+1 (non-binding)
Linkerd is an excellent service mesh proxy!
+1 (non-binding)
Linkerd is an excellent service mesh proxy!
|
By
Nikolay Pshenichnyy
·
#1914
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
+1 (non-binding)
By
Daniel Bryant
·
#1913
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
thank-you for the detailed summary, George!
thank-you for the detailed summary, George!
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#1912
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
+1 (non binding)
Linkerd provides a mature and production-ready implementation of a service mesh. There are several areas where its architecture has considerable benefits over currently available
+1 (non binding)
Linkerd provides a mature and production-ready implementation of a service mesh. There are several areas where its architecture has considerable benefits over currently available
|
By
g.khomeriki@...
·
#1911
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
+1 (non-binding)
By
Zack Angelo <zack.angelo@...>
·
#1910
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation
+1 (non-binding)
Linkerd is legit with a great core team and supporting community!
+1 (non-binding)
Linkerd is legit with a great core team and supporting community!
|
By
Dan Richelson
·
#1909
·
|