|
Re: Question on sandbox projects
and of course I posted the wrong screenshot sigh:  On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: Question on sandbox projects
At the moment, we are limited to what the CFP tool is capable of doing, so we only have a list. We have updated the list of projects to label their relative maturity level in the CFP system. For future CFPs, we will see if we can do what you have suggested. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: Question on sandbox projects
alexis richardson
Yes I agree with Quinton
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018, 21:53 Quinton Hoole, <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: Question on sandbox projects
Quinton Hoole
OK, I’m suggesting the opposite – three clearly separate lists –
graduated, incubating, sandbox
If I’m the only one who feel strongly on this I’m happy to step down off my soapbox. But I remember other TOC members having similarly strong feelings on the matter. Brian Cantril, Camille and Alexis come to mind?
Q
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 13:28 To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> Cc: Luis Pabon <luis@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Question on sandbox projects
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: Question on sandbox projects
We can annotate each listing with the project maturity level, that's my proposed solution moving forward. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: Question on sandbox projects
Quinton Hoole
This topic has already come up several times in the ToC. We explicitly decided that a very clear distinction should always be drawn between sandbox, incubation and graduated projects in external-facing communication. It doesn’t
sound like an alphabetical list mixing all of the projects together meets that goal.
Extract from sandbox.md, which I think needs to be strengthened to meet the above goals.
Some key points:
Quinton
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 13:18 To: Luis Pabon <luis@...> Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Question on sandbox projects
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: Question on sandbox projects
I don't see an issue with listing the projects in alphabetic order outside that it should be a series of checkboxes instead of radio buttons (we will fix that soon). The TOC list is meant for technical discussions so if you have something you'd like to change about the CFP form, please email events@... for suggestions and we can have a discussion there. Thanks. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Luis Pabon <luis@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: Question on sandbox projects
Luis Pab?n
Correct. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: [RESULT] Prometheus moving to graduation (PASSED)
alexis richardson
+1 congratulations and good work
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018, 17:06 Ihor Dvoretskyi, <ihor.dvoretskyi@...> wrote:
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)
hsaliak@...
Adding Tim Bozarth from Netflix, who's had some practical experience working with both gRPC and RSocket. Full thread here: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/topic/rsocket_followup_post_toc/24221841 In such a table, it will be good to figure out how to do justice to deliberate design choices and the tradeoffs. For example, broker vs no-broker, or choosing to base on top of http/2. Projects have valid reasons to go one way or another, and those considerations are very beneficial for the user to understand. FYI : I saw a few minor misconceptions for gRPC and I have called out a few that stood out.: - binary - must be wrapped in protobuf. This is not necessary, though offers a convenience. There are other formats (eg: flatbuffers) that support gRPC service generation. - max payload size is confiugrable - full duplex -- not sure what this means. gRPC supports bi directional streams. - IPC is not protobuf only. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:45 PM <colin@...> wrote: Reading through the responses, imo this speaks to a need for a public project feature comparison I mentioned elsewhere in this thread (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2192). |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: Question on sandbox projects
This is a question more for CNCF staff based on the marketing expectations of sandbox projects: I'm assuming you mean the alphabetical list of CNCF projects? On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Luis Pab?n <luis@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Question on sandbox projects
Luis Pab?n
Hi all, While creating a CFP for Kubecon/Seattle I noticed that sandbox projects get first level choices in the Kubecon CFP. Does this apply to any sandbox project? Will the CNCF continue with this model if we have many sandbox projects? Regards, - Luis |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: [RESULT] Prometheus moving to graduation (PASSED)
Ihor Dvoretskyi
Great news! Congratulations. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:05 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: [RESULT] Prometheus moving to graduation (PASSED)
Quinton Hoole
Congrats Prometheans!
Very well deserved.
Q
Quinton Hoole Technical Vice President America Research Center 2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Tel: 408-330-4721 Cell: 408-320-8917 Office # E2-9 Email: quinton.hoole@... ID#Q00403160
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 09:01 To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: [cncf-toc] [RESULT] Prometheus moving to graduation (PASSED)
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
[RESULT] Prometheus moving to graduation (PASSED)
The vote for Prometheus to graduate has been approved: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88 +1 binding TOC votes (9/9): Alexis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1957 Jon: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1963 Sam: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1964 Ken: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1977 Quinton: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2157 Camille: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2158 Bryan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2176 Brian: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2188 Ben: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2204 +1 non-binding community votes: Justin Cormack: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1958 Kapil Thangavelu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1959 John Belamaric: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1960 Julius Volz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1962 Ihor Dvoretskyi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1965 Lee Calcote: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1966 Doug Davis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1967 Bob Killeen: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1968 Alex Chircop: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1969 Justin Garrison: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1970 Vineet Gupta: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1972 Gary Brown: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1973 Anil Kumar: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1974 Randy Abernathy: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1975 Nick Chase: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1976 Dan Wilson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1979 Michael Hausenblas: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1980 Ara Pulido: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1981 Andy Satosa: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1982 Paul Adams: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1983 Ruben Orduz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1985 Eduardo Silva: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1986 Christian Posta: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1988 Juraci Paixão Kröhling: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1987 Daniel Bryant: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1989 Richard Hartmann: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1990 Justin Cappos: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1991 William Morgan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1992 Arun Gupta: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1993 Karan Gupta: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1994 Haifeng Liu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1995Von Gosling: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1996 Daniel Barker: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1998 Shannon Williams: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2000 Antonin Kral: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2001 Marius Grigoriu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2002 Chase Pettet: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2003 Josef Adersberger: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2159 Timothy Chen: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2163 Gaurav Garg: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2168 Sheng Liang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2170 Anjana Fernando: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2171 Jiantang Hao: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2173 Rob Lalonde: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2174 Harry Zhang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2175 Bassam Tabbara: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2179 Omri Gazitt: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2180 Pengfei Nei: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2181 Daniel Eichten: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2182 Mike Jacobi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2185 Colin Sullivan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2187 Jesse White: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2195 eleven.xu@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2184Thank you to everyone who voted and contributed to Prometheus, it's been fun to help the project grow as part of the CNCF community. I personally appreciate the Prometheus community in joining CNCF in the early days as our 2nd project and helping us evolve as an open source foundation for the better. Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation
Benjamin Hindman
+1 (binding)
--
Benjamin Hindman Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)
Quinton Hoole
Yes, that’s right. I’m not sure where the notion that Go doesn’t do async well came from. In my experience golang does just fine using channels and go routines.
Here’s a fairly useful article for anyone interested in the topic: https://medium.com/@alexyakunin/go-vs-c-part-1-goroutines-vs-async-await-ac909c651c11
On a different note, on the call I asked a question related to application flow control, but we ran out of time before being able to explore it fully.
My question is basically this:
A pretty common way that application flow control is achieved in TCP-based distributed systems is for a message consumer to simply stop reading messages off a TCP connection if it wants the message producer to stop sending messages from the other end.
TCP does all the rest automatically, compliments of sliding windows, receive buffers etc. If senders and receivers use fairly basic thread pools, back pressure through the system “just works”, in
my experience. It sounds like a fairly significant part of Rsocket is an additional protocol to achieve much the same back-pressure-based application flow control? Other than to support non-TCP transports (like UDP), which I would assume are fairly uncommon,
why did you feel it necessary to add an additional layer of application flow control on top of what TCP already provides?
Thanks
Q
Quinton Hoole Technical Vice President America Research Center 2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Tel: 408-330-4721 Cell: 408-320-8917 Office # E2-9 Email: quinton.hoole@... ID#Q00403160
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Robert Roeser <robert@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 18:00 To: Justin Cormack <justin.cormack@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Robert Roeser <robert@...>, Ben Hale <bhale@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)
Robert Roeser <robert@...>
Hi Justin,
From the go people I talked with we can use go channels for request stream and request channel. For request / response and fire forget people could be a use a go routine. I am not a go expert but understanding is that you could use
buffered channels with the RSocket request n semantics effectively.
I was told the interfaces could be idiomatic go.
Thanks,
Robert
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Justin Cormack <justin.cormack@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 3:27:23 PM To: Chris Aniszczyk Cc: CNCF TOC; Robert Roeser; Ben Hale Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting) The Go question came up in the call, which is interesting as much of the CNCF ecosystem is currently
Go based, although diversifying. Go is unusual in not supporting async interfaces really, prefering
to do explicit sync threading. The rsocket protocol is just a wire protocol, but I am curious if anyone
has looked at what the programming interface for Go might look like and whether maintaining this
might be an issue.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)
colin@...
Reading through the responses, imo this speaks to a need for a public project feature comparison I mentioned elsewhere in this thread (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2192).
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Re: RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)
Justin Cormack
The Go question came up in the call, which is interesting as much of the CNCF ecosystem is currently Go based, although diversifying. Go is unusual in not supporting async interfaces really, prefering to do explicit sync threading. The rsocket protocol is just a wire protocol, but I am curious if anyone has looked at what the programming interface for Go might look like and whether maintaining this might be an issue. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|||||
|
|
