|
Re: [VOTE] In-toto for incubating
Brandon Lum
+1 nb
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:54 PM Santiago Torres Arias <santiago@...> wrote: Hi Richard.
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] In-toto for incubating
Ken Owens
+1 NB
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:01 PM Melara, Marcela <marcela.melara@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] In-toto for incubating
Santiago Torres Arias <santiago@...>
Hi Richard.
+0 bindingI'm somewhat sad to read this reaction, considering we're an open source project that is *not* backed by a company (one of the few around here in fact). Although there are other users/communities we work with, I wanted to single out the long-standing work we've done with Debian dating back to 2015. search[1] nor Debian Maintainer search[2]. In a section below, DebianBeing a DD yourself, maybe you know Holger Levsen? https://github.com/orgs/in-toto/people/h01ger He's been coaching us in doing the packaging for the Debian ecosystem, including a transport for APT[1]. Which I believe is also used by QubesOS. It is also part of the reproducible builds project to check cross-build reproducibility (see integration with rebuilderd). https://reproducible.seal.purdue.wtf/ https://github.com/kpcyrd/rebuilderd Naturally, it is hard for me to make a statement to what level Debian is involved, without feeling like I'm putting words on people's mouths. However, I do believe that members of the Debian community have always been participating and helping us out (mostly as a part of a shared goal of build reprodicubility, as it is crucial for software supply chain security). Personally, I was surprised to see your positive attitude for reproducible builds on another project's (which is good to see it mentioned!) vote but glossed over the in-toto bits as part of the effort (I'm don't bleieve there are other CNCF projects listed here): https://reproducible-builds.org/who/projects/ Commit history graph[6] shows a distinct slowdown starting 2020. DoesIn a sense, yes, the Python implementation is being used in production, so we are wary to do major overhauls. We have adopted the attitude to use the golang implementation to test out new features and then port them back to the python one. I can also say that we had various degrees of developer turnover once the pandemic started... Is the "every 3 months release cadence" starting with 1.2.0?No, this has been a committment we've done and/or around version 1.0. We have lagged a couple of times, I agree. Recent PRs were largely janitorial and/or from bots[7]. Along similarThis is true, I'm not entirely in control on velocity. Overall, we get high fluctuation on it, depending on how features get approved, new integrations pop up, etc. I wish I had a better answer to this. Is there a timeframe for Future Plans & ITEs[11]?Overall, yes. Not sure if you've seen the roadmap reviews. We have also moved to a monthly community meeting time where we discuss ITE status and vote to increase velocity. We're starting to see a lot of implementations (e.g., witness) that are bringing up new features. As usual, we're in a tightrope between ensuring everybody is heard in terms of feature additions (so as to not overlap), and allow people to play with things to see what works. Yet, I do not currently get a strong feeling of high velocity nor of As such, my current vote is +0 as per above. Depending on answers, II do appreciate your perspective. And I've be happy to answer questions or rephrase answers as needed. Cheers! -Santiago [1] https://packages.debian.org/sid/x32/utils/apt-transport-in-toto On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 09:00:52PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] In-toto for incubating
Richard Hartmann
+0 binding
Still getting up to speed for TOC, sorry. Some questions: Debian is not a company. I couldn't find Lukas on Debian Developer search[1] nor Debian Maintainer search[2]. In a section below, Debian was removed and replaced with "New York University". Not a blocker, but being a Debian Developer myself, I feel compelled to mention it. Debian packages[3][4] for in-toto are from 2021-03-12, skipping 1.1.0, 1.1.1, and the recent 1.2.0 releases[5]. Commit history graph[6] shows a distinct slowdown starting 2020. Does this mean the project has reached/is approaching feature completeness? Is the "every 3 months release cadence" starting with 1.2.0? Recent PRs were largely janitorial and/or from bots[7]. Along similar lines, the three example PRs[8][9][10] are dated middle of last year. Is there a timeframe for Future Plans & ITEs[11]? I know from my own DDs that velocity can be deceiving, and that it can also be compensated by extremely wide adoption. Yet, I do not currently get a strong feeling of high velocity nor of very wide adoption. At the same time, I realize I am very late to the game in this DD process. Having joined TOC just before a week of illness makes me the late-comer with questions & vote. I explicitly do not want to block anything with incomplete information. As such, my current vote is +0 as per above. Depending on answers, I would be happy to switch to +1. Best, Richard [1] https://db.debian.org/ [2] https://nm.debian.org/public/findperson/ [3] https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=lukas.puehringer%40nyu.edu [4] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/in-toto [5] https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/tags [6] https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/graphs/contributors [7] https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/pulls?q=is%3Apr [8] https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/pull/462 [9] https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/pull/456 [10] https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto/pull/466 [11] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zoOdI_xygcY3Ta1LzTFfAjW8vhvR6lcAqQRlzYNo91k/edit#heading=h.hdo9ytubuszq
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Official vote for Knative for inclusion
Richard Hartmann
+1 binding
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Official vote for Knative for inclusion
Maulik Shyani
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Official vote for Knative for inclusion
naisingh@...
+1 non-binding
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Official vote for Knative for inclusion
naisingh@...
+1 non-binding
|
|
|
|
[VOTE] In-toto for incubating
Melara, Marcela <marcela.melara@...>
+1 non-binding
Marcela Melara, PhD Software Research Scientist Intel Labs, Oregon
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
Erin Boyd
+1 binding
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:03 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
Herve LECLERC
+1 non-binding
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Official vote for Knative for inclusion
Karena Angell
+1 non-binding
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
Karena Angell
+1! non-binding
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
Philippe Robin
+1 NB
Best regards, Philippe
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of Amye Scavarda Perrin via lists.cncf.io
Sent: 16 February 2022 19:00 To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
Kubevirt has applied to move to the incubation level.
-- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
Oleg Nenashev
+1 non-binding
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:34 AM Ricardo Rocha <ricardo.rocha@...> wrote: +1 binding
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
Ricardo Rocha
+1 binding
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 09:46:34AM +0100, Dave Zolotusky via lists.cncf.io wrote:
+1 binding
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
+1 binding
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:25 AM saiyam pathak <Saiyam911@...> wrote:
--
~Dave
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
saiyam pathak
+1 nb
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 1:52 PM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
--
CNCF Ambassador   
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Kubevirt for inclusion
Liz Rice
+1 nb
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 05:08, Divya Mohan <divya.mohan0209@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Official vote for Knative for inclusion
Aparna Sinha
+1 non-binding.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:10 PM Divya Mohan <divya.mohan0209@...> wrote:
|
|
|
