On Docs: https://readthedocs.org/projects/anuket/ already exists. There is a need for consolidated documentation (which was earlier driven in OPNFV by the docs project).
TSC agrees to have 2 release per year moving forward - one around June/15, one around Dec/15
As you are aware, LF has been investing in IT Modernization with a key focus of cost efficiencies and modernizing the workflow of open source projects throughout the LF. In 2019 the LFN TAC sponsored the Infrastructure Working Group recommending moving all the projects to "as a Service" implementations, specifically naming gitlab. Gitlab offers benefits in the developer experience, platform tooling, and resource management.
Specifically:
Developer experience: Gitlab provides a platform that is familiar for newer developers coming from Github, moves CI configurations next to the code, and enables projects to take advantage of Gitlab free container builds and CI's resources.
Platform tooling: There are security, dependency and licence scanning tools that can easily be integrated into CI to increase security and compliance, and container and package repositories that can be used to reduce CI reliance on other platforms (eg. Dockerhub).
Resource management: Moving to Gitlab.com will reduce the project's hosting costs, leverage Gitlab's SLA, and allow them to take advantage of features released monthly.
To mitigate the risk of this migration we plan on:
Running existing toolchains in parallel with the bring up of gitlab
Migrate projects as they become ready
Having LF IT do the work of migrating the CI/CD configurations
Utilizing LaaS resources when generic hardware is needed for validation.
Pulling in developers to double-check LF IT's work, and coordinate timing to enroll the hardware in Gitlab.
Trevor feels confident that the transition can be done within ~2 months (done by June); transition for projects post the next release (K-release) if so required. Target migration date should be flexible (migrate when the new tool chain is "turnkey" - so that no interruption to the projects' progress is caused).
Trevor will continuously update the TSC on progress of the transition
TSC AGREES to initiate the migration to gitlab as per the plan outlined by Trevor.
This is a subject to making sure that impact on projects and releases is limited and agreed
We'll use spaces to avoid namespace conflicts. But use with care.
If you want sub-trees copied from CNTT or OPNFV wiki, send email to Jim Baker, identifying the root of the sub-tree. Jim will create the associated tickets with LF.
How did we do on this call for action?
Will we drop blank Wiki Pages from the Wiki? (#agree on this??)
Further topics:
Alignment of groups/IDs across LF LDAP and Github.
Issue tracking (Jira/Github?).
Active OPNFV JIRA users: New Instance for Anuket!
File a ticket support.linuxfoundation.org for migration of your jira.opnfv.org project to jira.anuket.io as needed
Anuket per project wiki: TSC AGREES to remove projects from the wiki that don't update their wiki by . Note that this does not include archiving the project (which might happen at a later stage).
Jim plans to lock OPNFV and CNTT wikis by end of this week. This means you can continue to view, but won't be able to change the wiki.
Side topic discussion: The TSC needs to agree on a construct for Anuket of what constitutes contributions to Anuket that count for eligibility to vote and run for TSC. → To be added to the agenda for a future TSC meeting
15 min
Active Repo Migration
DockerHub Migration - no change to OPNFV Dockerhub
Contributor License Agreement → Only "DCO": Developer's Certificate of Origin
Other projects that Anuket Needs, but are not currently staffed???
PTLs/Co-Chairs
"Pharos":
Anuket needs a view of the available build/deploy/lab (incl. member labs) resources. TSC looks for volunteers to provide that overview - so that we can effectively use Anuket's budget in 2021 (before we spend money on new resources, the TSC needs a proper view on the current set of resources and their availability).
LFN lab resources: Linux Foundation Lab Projects are asked to move to "LaaS" resources (and off the existing UCS servers - so that they can be decommissioned).
VSperf proposes name chnage to "NetCAP". Name change will happen along with the move to the new github tooling (i.e. no need to change existing name in legacy tools).
