On 28/07/2015 10:44, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Ceph, >> >> The title sounds a little strange (Citerias to become a Ceph project) because I'm not aware of projects initiated by someone external to Ceph that later became part of the Ceph nebula of projects (as found at http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ or http://github.com/ceph/). I can however imagine that a piece of software developed with no interaction with the Ceph development community could be contributed and become a valuable addition (port to non GNU/Linux Operating Systems, monitoring applications for mobile devices etc.). >> >> Although publishing the code of such a component under a Free Software license is a natural first step, there is more to do before it becomes part of what we (the community of Ceph developers) care for on a regular basis. Borrowing the OpenStack requirements ( at http://governance.openstack.org/reference/new-projects-requirements.html ), it could be expressed as: >> >> Free Software: >> The proposed project uses a Free Software license as published at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses >> Project must have no library dependencies which effectively restrict how the project may be distributed or deployed >> Open Community: >> The leadership is chosen by the contributors to the project >> The project has regular public meetings on IRC and those meetings are logged and published >> Open Development: >> The project uses public code reviews >> The project has core reviewers and adopts a test-driven gate >> The project provides liaisons that serve as contacts for the work of cross-project teams in Ceph >> Where it makes sense, the project cooperates with existing projects rather than gratuitously competing or reinventing the wheel >> Where appropriate, the project adopts technology and patterns used by existing Ceph projects >> Open Design: >> The project direction is discussed at the Ceph Design Summit and/or on public forums >> The project uses the ceph-devel ML to discuss issues >> >> These requirements are formal in the case of OpenStack but they could also be used in the context of Ceph, not as requirements but as a guideline. >> >> What do you think ? > > Several small projects have been added to the Ceph constellation > despite being initially implemented outside of our systems. Mostly > things like rados-java and phprados. > > Obviously those are small and related to Ceph, and the process was > "let's add this to the Ceph Github?" "Okay." I think if we need more > formal rules we can invent them as we go; Ceph is not OpenStack and > isn't going to be supervising the same volume nor breadth of > individual groups. Maybe these could be "Guidelines to become a Ceph project" ? It seems to me that there is a big gap between the dynamic of phprados and say, radosgw-agent. By reading the guidelines, someone willing to contribute code to Ceph understands it's not just about pushing code to a publicly available repository. Does that make sense ? -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
