RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Holger Freyther]

Hi all, sysadmins,

could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this repository I
would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN, LCR, Asterisk (and
probably more in the future).

cheers
	holger

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Philip Balister]

On 11/10/2011 09:58 AM, Holger Freyther wrote:
> Hi all, sysadmins,
> 
> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this repository I
> would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN, LCR, Asterisk (and
> probably more in the future).

What about OpenBTS also :) And what about the libraries needed to build
these? It would be good to minimize layer inter-dependencies.

Philip

> 
> cheers
> 	holger
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> 

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Paul Eggleton]

On Thursday 10 November 2011 15:58:07 Holger Freyther wrote:
> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this repository
> I would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN, LCR, Asterisk
> (and probably more in the future).

Sounds like a great idea. +1.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 536 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 03:58:07PM +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
> Hi all, sysadmins,
> 
> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this repository I
> would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN, LCR, Asterisk (and
> probably more in the future).

osmocomBB already exists in meta-smartphone
http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=tree;f=meta-osmocombb;h=dcf02e515d1dd8dc9aa10a6411615ad2a2186db3;hb=HEAD

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 10-11-11 15:58, Holger Freyther schreef:
> Hi all, sysadmins,
> 
> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me?

Why not use github/gitorious/etc for it?

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFOu/0/MkyGM64RGpERAqUVAKCRi9VaRT3c/VkeBT1oDB6onajaKgCeKCMS
uIvOZazYvK9w3y+BShspoLM=
=rnK7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

> Op 10-11-11 15:58, Holger Freyther schreef:
> > Hi all, sysadmins,
> > 
> > could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me?
> 
> Why not use github/gitorious/etc for it?

Do you have a hidden anti-OpenEmbedded agenda here? ;-)

Seriously though, why is it better than oe.org hosting?

-- 
Denys

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 10-11-11 19:57, Denys Dmytriyenko schreef:
>> Op 10-11-11 15:58, Holger Freyther schreef:
>>> Hi all, sysadmins,
>>> 
>>> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me?
>> 
>> Why not use github/gitorious/etc for it?
> 
> Do you have a hidden anti-OpenEmbedded agenda here? ;-)
> 
> Seriously though, why is it better than oe.org hosting?

It has less constraints. You should know, since you were the one telling me
that oe.org is resource constrained and we can't host too many layers.

I haven't seen enough reason to place the burden for this layer on the OE
admin team instead of doing 'self' hosting on gitorious/github/etc/



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFOvDM0MkyGM64RGpERAqoBAKCjVDqjsjmYJOhRVkU+YWh4TlOGWACfZnvx
WETbx98dV+/px3ofKTEHN2w=
=YzlL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:25:24PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Op 10-11-11 19:57, Denys Dmytriyenko schreef:
> >> Op 10-11-11 15:58, Holger Freyther schreef:
> >>> Hi all, sysadmins,
> >>> 
> >>> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me?
> >> 
> >> Why not use github/gitorious/etc for it?
> > 
> > Do you have a hidden anti-OpenEmbedded agenda here? ;-)
> > 
> > Seriously though, why is it better than oe.org hosting?
> 
> It has less constraints. You should know, since you were the one telling me
> that oe.org is resource constrained and we can't host too many layers.
> 
> I haven't seen enough reason to place the burden for this layer on the OE
> admin team instead of doing 'self' hosting on gitorious/github/etc/

Well, first of all, when we had constrained resources at oe.org, we were 
trying to limit the number of commercial layers, assuming that the company 
behind such layer is well capable of providing hosting for their product. 
That would mean BSP layers from semis, like Intel, TI, Freescale etc. or 
commercial distro layers from OSVs, such as Mentor, Montavista etc.
We always welcomed community layers on oe.org, even BSP layers for platforms 
that had no official commercial support, but also distro, apps and other 
layers, as long as they had "supported by community" status.

And second, since now we have new servers graciously donated by The Linux 
Foundation, we should not object to new community layers hosted on oe.org. 
I'd let our admins comment on the burden, though.

-- 
Denys

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Holger Freyther]

On 11/10/2011 10:01 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:

>> I haven't seen enough reason to place the burden for this layer on the OE
>> admin team instead of doing 'self' hosting on gitorious/github/etc/
> 
> Well, first of all, when we had constrained resources at oe.org, we were 
> trying to limit the number of commercial layers, assuming that the company 
> behind such layer is well capable of providing hosting for their product. 
> That would mean BSP layers from semis, like Intel, TI, Freescale etc. or 
> commercial distro layers from OSVs, such as Mentor, Montavista etc.
> We always welcomed community layers on oe.org, even BSP layers for platforms 
> that had no official commercial support, but also distro, apps and other 
> layers, as long as they had "supported by community" status.

Okay,

i don't mind hosting this myself (either gitorious or really myself). The
reason to ask for hosting it on OE was making it easier to collaborate with OE
members and making it more easy to find the repository.

cheers
	holger

PS: sorry for reposting... postfix +subject and mailman don't know each
other... thunderbird is of not much help either.

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 11-11-11 10:44, Holger Freyther schreef:
> On 11/10/2011 10:01 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> 
>>> I haven't seen enough reason to place the burden for this layer on
>>> the OE admin team instead of doing 'self' hosting on
>>> gitorious/github/etc/
>> 
>> Well, first of all, when we had constrained resources at oe.org, we
>> were trying to limit the number of commercial layers, assuming that the
>> company behind such layer is well capable of providing hosting for
>> their product. That would mean BSP layers from semis, like Intel, TI,
>> Freescale etc. or commercial distro layers from OSVs, such as Mentor,
>> Montavista etc. We always welcomed community layers on oe.org, even BSP
>> layers for platforms that had no official commercial support, but also
>> distro, apps and other layers, as long as they had "supported by
>> community" status.
> 
> Okay,
> 
> i don't mind hosting this myself (either gitorious or really myself).
> The reason to ask for hosting it on OE was making it easier to
> collaborate with OE members and making it more easy to find the
> repository.

Having worked with layers for quite a while now I go through the following
list before creating one:

Does it need to be a layer? -> no -> send patches to existing layers
	|
	yes
	|
Does it need to be a seperate repo? -> no -> send patches to existing repos
	|
	yes
	|
Is github/gitorious/etc good enough? -> no -> ...
	|
	yes
	|
Create repo + layer

And after a I while re-evaluate it.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFOvPzgMkyGM64RGpERAjNiAJ4114dbMzlf07Jsa4IeGGmhxX1n2QCfchcF
PmSc2wSo80JoBXbPHZo5PgM=
=ulrG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Holger Freyther]

On 11/11/2011 11:45 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:

> 

> 
> And after a I while re-evaluate it.

all fine, one question not answered though. How does someone that wants to add
asterisk to his image find my layer? Is there a layer/repository registry? do
we need one?

holger

_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Phil Blundell]

On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 13:54 +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
> all fine, one question not answered though. How does someone that wants to add
> asterisk to his image find my layer? Is there a layer/repository registry? do
> we need one?

Paul Eggleton made a fine wiki page for that very purpose:
http://wiki.openembedded.org/wiki/LayerIndex

p.

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Paul Eggleton]

On Friday 11 November 2011 13:02:27 Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 13:54 +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
> > all fine, one question not answered though. How does someone that wants
> > to add asterisk to his image find my layer? Is there a layer/repository
> > registry? do we need one?
> 
> Paul Eggleton made a fine wiki page for that very purpose:
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/wiki/LayerIndex

I hope one day this can be replaced with something backed by a database; 
preferably with the ability to search at least by recipe name (with regular 
updates from the metadata in git, of course). Until someone has time to write 
that though this will have to suffice.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Florian Boor]

Hi,

Am 10.11.2011 17:35, schrieb Koen Kooi:
> Why not use github/gitorious/etc for it?

because its likely creating random OE layers in random servers will turn OE-core
from "bad usability" to "almost impossible to use".

I do not think it is a good idea for a project to host parts which are part of
its core competence on various services. We are not the only one suffering from
it, but we do no have to make it worse.

Greetings

Florian

-- 
The dream of yesterday                  Florian Boor
is the hope of today                    Tel: +49 271-771091-15
and the reality of tomorrow.            Fax: +49 271-771091-19
[Robert Hutchings Goddard, 1904]        florian.boor@kernelconcepts.de
                                        http://www.kernelconcepts.de/en

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Khem Raj]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Holger Freyther <holger+oe@freyther.de> wrote:
> Hi all, sysadmins,
>
> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this repository I
> would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN, LCR, Asterisk (and
> probably more in the future).

Can it exist under meta-openembedded umbrella ?

>
> cheers
>        holger
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Holger Freyther]

Hi all, sysadmins,

could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this repository I
would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN, LCR, Asterisk (and
probably more in the future).

cheers
	holger

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Philip Balister]

On 11/10/2011 10:49 AM, Holger Freyther wrote:
> Hi all, sysadmins,
> 
> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this repository I
> would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN, LCR, Asterisk (and
> probably more in the future).

Another thouht, rather than add another layer, wouldn't it make sense to
add a recipes-telephony directory to the existing
meta-openembedded/meta-oe directory?

Philip

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Paul Eggleton]

On Thursday 10 November 2011 11:11:45 Philip Balister wrote:
> Another thouht, rather than add another layer, wouldn't it make sense to
> add a recipes-telephony directory to the existing
> meta-openembedded/meta-oe directory?

To my mind, that's explicitly not what meta-oe is for. If you can find a more 
purpose-focused place for recipes to go, that's where they should be. For 
these recipes there is a clear theme (telephony).

(I'm not necessarily suggesting they have to be in a new *repository*, i.e. 
they could easily be a new meta-telephony dir within the meta-openembedded 
repo.)

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Phil Blundell]

On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 16:49 +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this repository I
> would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN, LCR, Asterisk (and
> probably more in the future).

Sounds like a good idea.  I can set this up on oe.org if you want.

p.

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 10-11-11 18:21, Phil Blundell schreef:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 16:49 +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
>> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this
>> repository I would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN,
>> LCR, Asterisk (and probably more in the future).
> 
> Sounds like a good idea.  I can set this up on oe.org if you want.

Infrastructure is still a TSC thing, so please don't go creating
repositories without consulting the TSC first.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFOvDKKMkyGM64RGpERAjH/AJ9OyhLaxdcqjWRRlad7etTOqGMwkgCdES94
jRtR/1F+hKk/3FmcjO/GJVM=
=ezna
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Florian Boor]

Hi,

Am 10.11.2011 21:22, schrieb Koen Kooi:
>> Sounds like a good idea.  I can set this up on oe.org if you want.
> 
> Infrastructure is still a TSC thing, so please don't go creating
> repositories without consulting the TSC first.

I do not agree here... creating another layer is a simple administrative thing
to do and everyone with the rights to do it should be able to do it independent
from TSC.

Greetings

Florian

-- 
The dream of yesterday                  Florian Boor
is the hope of today                    Tel: +49 271-771091-15
and the reality of tomorrow.            Fax: +49 271-771091-19
[Robert Hutchings Goddard, 1904]        florian.boor@kernelconcepts.de
                                        http://www.kernelconcepts.de/en

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 10-11-11 21:29, Florian Boor schreef:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 10.11.2011 21:22, schrieb Koen Kooi:
>>> Sounds like a good idea.  I can set this up on oe.org if you want.
>> 
>> Infrastructure is still a TSC thing, so please don't go creating 
>> repositories without consulting the TSC first.
> 
> I do not agree here...

You voted for the TSC charter yourself, have you changed opinion? If so,
submit a voting proposal to the e.V.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFOvOZ9MkyGM64RGpERApQ1AKCykpOpmfSngNkO6OlD7SOt7gAdOQCcCzqf
MbUKQLbAhO/6rqwhTBi4/iQ=
=guxS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Phil Blundell]

On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 21:22 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 10-11-11 18:21, Phil Blundell schreef:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 16:49 +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
> >> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this
> >> repository I would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN,
> >> LCR, Asterisk (and probably more in the future).
> > 
> > Sounds like a good idea.  I can set this up on oe.org if you want.
> 
> Infrastructure is still a TSC thing, so please don't go creating
> repositories without consulting the TSC first.

I don't recall any general requirement that one needs to seek permission
from the TSC before acting on what seems like essentially a minor
operational matter.  When did this become the policy?

p.

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 10-11-11 22:07, Phil Blundell schreef:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 21:22 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 10-11-11 18:21, Phil Blundell schreef:
>>> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 16:49 +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
>>>> could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this 
>>>> repository I would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA,
>>>> mISDN, LCR, Asterisk (and probably more in the future).
>>> 
>>> Sounds like a good idea.  I can set this up on oe.org if you want.
>> 
>> Infrastructure is still a TSC thing, so please don't go creating 
>> repositories without consulting the TSC first.
> 
> I don't recall any general requirement that one needs to seek permission 
> from the TSC before acting on what seems like essentially a minor 
> operational matter.  When did this become the policy?

Ever since the TSC has been formed. You never noticed it since the second
TSC was so shockingly passive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFOvOZRMkyGM64RGpERArfYAJ93AgSYj1EOKOmfFDFEfTT2VQdqVgCff+ln
FhA+5qkhzCOlrQbJZB3lADA=
=5g6I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Florian Boor]

Hi,

Am 11.11.2011 10:09, schrieb Koen Kooi:
>> I don't recall any general requirement that one needs to seek permission 
>> from the TSC before acting on what seems like essentially a minor 
>> operational matter.  When did this become the policy?
> 
> Ever since the TSC has been formed. You never noticed it since the second
> TSC was so shockingly passive.

the job of the TSC is sketched in the TSC Charter like this:
"To govern access to all technical aspects of OpenEmbedded, this includes
official git trees, openembedded-devel mailing list, bug trackers, QA systems,
and others as the TSC sees fit."

In this context my interpretation would be that the TSC grants permissions for
write access to the Git tree but nothing more. And further control related to
the responsible use of Git is not defined and IMHO never was. Phil has the
required permissions to create a layer, so why he would have to ask?

If there are really members out there who interpret this sentence as "you have
to ask the TSC for everything related to use of the Git server" we need to
discuss the charter again. If we do not make this more clear it won't take long
and someone steps up claiming that the TSC would have to accept any single
commit :-/

Greetings

Florian

-- 
The dream of yesterday                  Florian Boor
is the hope of today                    Tel: +49 271-771091-15
and the reality of tomorrow.            Fax: +49 271-771091-19
[Robert Hutchings Goddard, 1904]        florian.boor@kernelconcepts.de
                                        http://www.kernelconcepts.de/en

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 11-11-11 10:25, Florian Boor schreef:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 11.11.2011 10:09, schrieb Koen Kooi:
>>> I don't recall any general requirement that one needs to seek
>>> permission from the TSC before acting on what seems like essentially
>>> a minor operational matter.  When did this become the policy?
>> 
>> Ever since the TSC has been formed. You never noticed it since the
>> second TSC was so shockingly passive.
> 
> the job of the TSC is sketched in the TSC Charter like this: "To govern
> access to all technical aspects of OpenEmbedded, this includes official
> git trees, openembedded-devel mailing list, bug trackers, QA systems, and
> others as the TSC sees fit."
> 
> In this context my interpretation would be that the TSC grants
> permissions for write access to the Git tree but nothing more. And
> further control related to the responsible use of Git is not defined and
> IMHO never was. Phil has the required permissions to create a layer, so
> why he would have to ask?

Phil also has the required permissions to delete trees, should he have to
ask when doing that?
The fact that you have permissions doesn't mean you may use them at will.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFOvO0UMkyGM64RGpERAqW0AJ9poKdlAZ7ZPjLjuIW6xgaILJp7sQCfU7jD
Hrr3S6Mf1DsI7q/55C36J5s=
=a4Rx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Florian Boor]

Hi Koen,

Am 11.11.2011 10:38, schrieb Koen Kooi:
> Phil also has the required permissions to delete trees, should he have to
> ask when doing that?
> The fact that you have permissions doesn't mean you may use them at will.

this starts to become a little bit childish, right?

These stupid "playing around with power" does not lead to anything apart from
frustration, chaos and fragmentation. For OE I hope this is your personal
opinion and not the one of the whole TSC.

Geetings

Florian

-- 
The dream of yesterday                  Florian Boor
is the hope of today                    Tel: +49 271-771091-15
and the reality of tomorrow.            Fax: +49 271-771091-19
[Robert Hutchings Goddard, 1904]        florian.boor@kernelconcepts.de
                                        http://www.kernelconcepts.de/en

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Phil Blundell]

On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 10:25 +0100, Florian Boor wrote:
> In this context my interpretation would be that the TSC grants permissions for
> write access to the Git tree but nothing more. And further control related to
> the responsible use of Git is not defined and IMHO never was. Phil has the
> required permissions to create a layer, so why he would have to ask?
> 
> If there are really members out there who interpret this sentence as "you have
> to ask the TSC for everything related to use of the Git server" we need to
> discuss the charter again. If we do not make this more clear it won't take long
> and someone steps up claiming that the TSC would have to accept any single
> commit :-/

Well, indeed.  Also, in the particular case at hand, it seems that the
board has already made a policy decision about community-maintained
layers being appropriate for hosting on oe.org.  I'm not sure that it is
within the TSC's remit to obstruct the implementation of that policy by
insisting on some sort of extra approval process every time someone
wants to create such a layer.

The other thing that seems faintly absurd in this particular instance is
that nobody has raised any actual objection to the creation of the layer
in principle and, aside from noting that we don't wish the admin team to
be overworked, nor has anybody suggested any reasons why it shouldn't be
hosted on oe.org.  So, on that basis, and absent any reason to believe
that this layer would produce a crippling administrative workload, it
isn't obvious what rational basis the TSC would have for deciding to
oppose its creation.

p.

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 11-11-11 11:10, Phil Blundell schreef:
> On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 10:25 +0100, Florian Boor wrote:
>> In this context my interpretation would be that the TSC grants 
>> permissions for write access to the Git tree but nothing more. And 
>> further control related to the responsible use of Git is not defined 
>> and IMHO never was. Phil has the required permissions to create a 
>> layer, so why he would have to ask?
>> 
>> If there are really members out there who interpret this sentence as 
>> "you have to ask the TSC for everything related to use of the Git 
>> server" we need to discuss the charter again. If we do not make this 
>> more clear it won't take long and someone steps up claiming that the 
>> TSC would have to accept any single commit :-/
> 
> Well, indeed.  Also, in the particular case at hand, it seems that the 
> board has already made a policy decision about community-maintained 
> layers being appropriate for hosting on oe.org.  I'm not sure that it is
>  within the TSC's remit to obstruct the implementation of that policy by
>  insisting on some sort of extra approval process every time someone
> wants to create such a layer.
> 
> The other thing that seems faintly absurd in this particular instance is
>  that nobody has raised any actual objection to the creation of the layer
>  in principle and, aside from noting that we don't wish the admin team to
>  be overworked, nor has anybody suggested any reasons why it shouldn't be
>  hosted on oe.org.  So, on that basis, and absent any reason to believe 
> that this layer would produce a crippling administrative workload, it 
> isn't obvious what rational basis the TSC would have for deciding to 
> oppose its creation.

Have you asked the TSC? My point was that you should ask before going ahead.
I can't speak for the TSC, but I wouldn't expect any troubles on that front,
but you do need to ask first.

In the past the TSC has expressed their suprise at git repos popping up on
oe.org with their knowledge.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFOvPr1MkyGM64RGpERAk5TAJ4z69GzWmjV6p9LCZv/HkDzgL4VlACdEuPh
rJ1ZwBNpUSyu5Foca7mJbIw=
=XQNE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC Creation of a meta-telephony repository

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

>could someone create a meta-telephony repository for me? In this repository I
>would like to maintain OpenBSC, osmocomBB, TETRA, mISDN, LCR, Asterisk (and
>probably more in the future).
I already did some osmocomBB recipes in meta-smartphone.
(only the necessary recipes to load osmocomBB on the freerunner baseband)

Denis.