[Ofa_boardplus] New OpenFabricsSoftware webpage

[Jason Gunthorpe]

EWG should move to github so they can use the collaboration tools it
provides when building OFED, as it might encourage more vendors to
participate.

DAPL should move simply because it will be the last thing left on the
server and it costs OFA money to maintain this git service.

Jason

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:50:56PM +0000, Woodruff, Robert J wrote:
>    Some of the repos on the OFA are still used by the EWG to create OFED.
>    DAPL is mostly in maintenance mode and it would be easier to leave it
>    where it is
>    since moving it would actually require more work. Also, I believe that
>    vlad stages the kernel code in a git tree on the OFA server to allow
>    adding the backports and
>    create the RPMs and various packages.
> 
> 
>    I agree that for old git trees that are now maintained elsewhere, we
>    should remove those but not the ones that are still being actively
>    used.
> 
> 
>    From: Ofa_boardplus
>    [mailto:ofa_boardplus-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of
>    Coulter, Susan K
>    Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 11:18 AM
>    To: Hal Rosenstock <hal at mellanox.com>
>    Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca>;
>    ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org,
>    <ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org>
>    Subject: Re: [Ofa_boardplus] New OpenFabricsSoftware webpage
> 
> 
> 
>    Wonderful.
> 
> 
>    Hal - Can you let me know when your repos have been moved ?
> 
> 
>    Arlin/Woody - Can you talk about how removing the OFA git site affects
>    the EWG?
> 
>    Removing it completely would be the optimal goal.
> 
>    DAPL would have to go somewhere, and I’m not sure if the OFA bugzilla
>    would be affected by this.
> 
> 
>    On Jun 4, 2018, at 11:39 AM, Hal Rosenstock <[1]hal at mellanox.com>
>    wrote:
> 
> 
>      On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 05:36:07PM +0000, Coulter, Susan K wrote:
> 
>        Please see the attached preso.
>        It is a list of the repos on the OFA git site.
>        The top section are the only repos that look remotely valid.
> 
>      ~tnikolova/{libi40iw, libiwpm, libnes} and ~halr/libibumad are all
>      superseded by rdma-core.
>      mstflint is superseded by
>      [2]https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%
>      2Fgith
>      ub.com%2FMellanox%2Fmstflint&data=02%7C01%7Chal%40mellanox.com%7
>      C0e1601ec12284bf4b83a08d5ca408abf%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f4
>      61b%7C0%7C0%7C636637300927610895&sdata=gZd7Uy6b%2BeIM7jD%2FK9h
>      FCfyhl1wW9bJc9u8PPMd2R%2Bo%3D&reserved=0
>      Ignoring the clearly EWG/OFED stuff that leaves
>      ~ardavis/dapl.git
>      ~halr/ibsim.git
>      ~halr/opensm.git
>      Hal: Do you think we should move ibsim and opensm to linux-rdma's
>      github
>      project? Or someplace else?
> 
>    I think that linux-rdma github is fine for these repos.
>    ~hal/dump_pr.git should go there too.
> 
>      No idea what to do with DAPL, if EWG starts a OFA github project
>      then
>      maybe move it there?
> 
>        If we can ultimately move the valid bits to github - we can then
>        discontinue a separate git site.
> 
>      Strongly recommend EWG re-organize their process around github or
>      similar..
>      Jason
> 
> 
>    ================================
>    Susan Coulter
>    LANL / USRC / HPC-DES
>    Network Lead
>    (505) 412-6525
>    Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
>    ================================
> 
> References
> 
>    1. mailto:hal at mellanox.com
>    2. https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://gith