#opendaylight-meeting: odlforge

Meeting summary

1. 1. http://ci.openstack.org/stackforge.html (cdub, 18:10:26)
   2. the core idea is to give people a place to do real work with code without having to go through project proposal project (colindixon, 18:11:45)
   3. it’s also a great way to start and maintain things until they become good incubation projects and have the TSC have good data about how much interest there is (colindixon, 18:12:42)
   4. https://github.com/odlforge (cdub, 18:12:57)
   5. key point is that it *is not* actual ODL code, it isn’t shipped in releases, or officially blessed (colindixon, 18:13:00)
   6. the above link makes that clear by differentiating between git.opendaylight.org, our mirror at github.com/opendaylight, and github.com/odlforge (colindixon, 18:14:08)
   7. https://meetings.opendaylight.org/opendaylight-meeting/2014/odlforge/opendaylight-meeting-odlforge.2014-08-14-18.10.log.txt (colindixon, 18:15:10)
   8. so far, the only thing that has been done is to create that empty github page (colindixon, 18:15:32)
   9. edwarnicke asks why we stood it up on github instead of our own infrastructure (colindixon, 18:15:57)
   10. cdub says that the github is there just for the same reason our current github thing is there, i.e., to mirror our own internal gerrit things (colindixon, 18:16:54)
   11. tykeal says that his current thoughts are to have only one gerrit set up with a separate tree named “forge” or “odlforge” (colindixon, 18:17:29)
   12. edwarnicke expresses some worry that that might not be enough separation since forge patches would show up looking similar to regular projects (colindixon, 18:18:34)
   
   
2. tykeal’s thoghts on how to get this working (colindixon, 18:21:33)
   1. current ideas: separate tree in a current gerrit (cdub, 18:21:53)
   2. right now the thought was a separate tree in gerrit for two reasons: (1) people can keep their current profile and (2) less infrastructure to set up (colindixon, 18:22:07)
   3. there would be a wholly separate jenkins for forge with something like jenkins-forge.opendaylight.org or something similar (colindixon, 18:22:59)
   4. for bugzilla, there’s no way to clearly tag things as forge and tykeal really doesn’t want to set up another bugzilla (colindixon, 18:23:32)
   5. likely punt on bz (hard to separate and hard to set up new one) (cdub, 18:23:38)
   6. use dev list w/ forge project [topic] (no new lists!) (cdub, 18:24:05)
   7. last thing is mailing lists, tykeal says he’s adamantly opposed to giving them their own mailing lists (colindixon, 18:24:34)
   8. separate repositories for forge artifacts (colindixon, 18:25:10)
   9. nexus...opendaylight-forge repo and use org.opendaylight.forge namespace (cdub, 18:25:11)
   10. gerrit separation concern (a cset gerrit link doesn't indicate the project until you click on it) (cdub, 18:30:34)
   11. cdub proposes the idea of setting up a single project to test out things like infrastructure, etc. (tbachman, 18:41:55)
   12. edwarnicke expresses concern about separation (tbachman, 18:42:04)
   13. tykeal believes the separation issue boils down to gerrit (tbachman, 18:42:19)
   14. edwarnick asks if we’ll have a separate gerrit for odlforge (tbachman, 18:42:29)
   15. tykeal says that if we go that route, we will not allow imports of history (tbachman, 18:42:48)
   16. b/c there is no way to confirm that the same SSO ID exists in both gerrit systems at the same time (tbachman, 18:43:11)
   17. be sure odl projects can't depend on odlforge projects (cdub, 18:46:17)

Action items

1. (none)

People present (lines said)

1. colindixon (27)
2. cdub (12)
3. rexpugh (7)
4. tbachman (6)
5. odl_meetbot (5)
6. Madhu_ (2)
7. tykeal (1)
8. dfarrell07 (1)
9. phrobb (0)
10. edwarnicke (0)