Review @brightside usages for GA

[MarkAckert]

For Zowe GA, we need to review leftover Brightside mentions within Zowe CLI and Zowe CLI Installation Doc, and prioritize resolution of them with target dates.

[MarkAckert]

Known areas: -[Removal In Progress] Environment Variables -[Removal In Progress] Local Directory Usage (Home dir ".brightside") -npm install comands (CA Bintray) -npm install commands (@brightside scope) -source tree package names (brightside)

[hogstrom]

I was talking with Bruce today and I’d like some input for GA. With the teams running their own architecture discussions I know for me its hard to chase all of the content. As Sean said, we probably shouldn’t have to but I have a sneaking suspicion that the GA 1 target is not universally defined.

One approach is to create the “press release” of what we are planning in delivering as Zowe Release 1.0.0.1 that outlines the capabilities, requirements, etc. and then the individual squads can ensure that their efforts are lining up with the technical capabilities of the formal release. Other suggestions on how to unify the groups ?

We can take a swag at the initial release to put a “bird in the air” for everyone to look at, modify and come to consensus on.

On Sep 12, 2018, at 1:52 PM, Mark Ackert notifications@github.com wrote:

For Zowe GA, we need to review leftover Brightside mentions within Zowe CLI and Zowe CLI Installation Doc, and prioritize resolution of them with target dates.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/zowe/zlc/issues/28, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACxXp6ABz50tXAgUijEjB6OudwGCs5umks5uaUnTgaJpZM4Wl3-a.

[MarkAckert]

Matt, As you say - I think the teams are in varying states of planning and prioritization towards a GA 1 target.

Building on your idea for a "swag" of the initial release - I think we should take the following steps to consolidate our understanding and guidance for the teams:

1. Define high level objectives for Zowe GA 1 release at the ZLC level, prioritized by importance. Input from those outside the ZLC - marketing and technical - is welcome and desired.
2. Review squad backlogs w/ squad leads. Prioritize the work present in accordance with our high level objectives and their self-driven goals.

Once those two steps are done, we can evaluate our deliverable state / confidence and adjust our GA 1 goals or work items as necessary. Repeat step 2 as necessary.

I don't know that this will work out perfectly as some work is still in planning phase so we don't have a strong concept for the amount of time it will take to complete. I'm also a little conflicted over the defining of ZLC Zowe GA 1 goals as opposed to self-organizing squad goals, but we should start project guidance somewhere.

[MarkAckert]

@1000TurquoisePogs @hogstrom @armstro @jplinardon

This Github issue went slightly off the rails from its intended purpose. Could we review this specific topic from this github issue on tomorrow's ZLC call:

-CLI npm install commands (@brightside scope)

We need to decide if changing the npm scope from @brightside to @zowe (or @zowecli) is something we see as being on the critical path for Zowe. -@brightside/imperative -> @zowe/imperative -@brightside/core -> @zowe/core

The work involved to change the scope and mitigate breakage periods is nontrivial, and will become more difficult as we defer it.

[1000TurquoisePogs]

It's likely that at some point some zlux components will also be npm-installable. The widgets already can be pulled in from that way: https://github.com/zowe/zlux-widgets/blob/master/README.md

So, when it comes to "core" code, brightside's core is different from the ui core (zlux-platform and zlux-app-manager today). I'd use a more descriptive term than @zowe/core for this reason. @zowe/cli-core? @zowe-cli/core?

[MarkAckert]

@zowe/zlc @jmertic

Matt & Sean & ZLC - When last we spoke on the ZLC call, I believe we said it would be preferable to change the CLI package name from @brightside/core to @zowe-cli/core by Zowe GA 1.0. After speaking with the team, they don't have capacity to complete this work by GA. The package naming change may even be postponed further in the future when prioritized against other features/epics in the pipeline - in other words - there is no estimated completion date after GA 1.0.

If the ZLC considers this work to be necessary for completion by GA time or afterwards, I believe the ZLC will need to vote to make it an official requirement which will trigger a re-prioritization of planned work by the CLI Squad. If this is the path we want to take, I will abstain from voting.

[jmertic]

My gut is delaying this will cause more problems down the road than making the change now, as well as the confusion on mark usage ( unless CA wants to donate the brightside marks to the project ).

[jmertic]

Saw this was discussed - what are next steps. I think it will be not ideal to have the brightside marks in the Zowe open source project code if that is a mark only being used by CA.

[MarkAckert]

We were not able to discuss this topic on this week’s ZLC call, my request for discussion was sent out after the weekly call.

I think the ZLC needs to discuss/vote on the following two points

1. Mandate if the work needs to be completed
2. If (1) passes vote, then declare a timeframe for completion. 1.0.0 or can it be pushed after 1.0.0?

From: John Mertic notifications@github.com Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 9:03 AM To: zowe/zlc zlc@noreply.github.com Cc: Ackert, Mark G Mark.Ackert@ca.com; Assign assign@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [zowe/zlc] Review @brightside usages for GA (#28)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CA. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Saw this was discussed - what are next steps. I think it will be not ideal to have the brightside marks in the Zowe open source project code if that is a mark only being used by CA.

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_zowe_zlc_issues_28-23issuecomment-2D433399820&d=DwMCaQ&c=_hRq4mqlUmqpqlyQ5hkoDXIVh6I6pxfkkNxQuL0p-Z0&r=vQmyJ3cryI0pp-72rN6D25sHuAlsustGo1A1CO3U-6A&m=ypnOkhM-AA_pMByez3RIxc3WfHm34nTd7EMbCEyxnAw&s=J_mAIygqZaKFDmJvMaa5anJQu2YpC-ct-g0nj8ecPa0&e=, or mute the threadhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AhrFpmY3X6CYhq3NkGfsZRzd4s-5FLglxvks5uowfrgaJpZM4Wl3-2Da&d=DwMCaQ&c=_hRq4mqlUmqpqlyQ5hkoDXIVh6I6pxfkkNxQuL0p-Z0&r=vQmyJ3cryI0pp-72rN6D25sHuAlsustGo1A1CO3U-6A&m=ypnOkhM-AA_pMByez3RIxc3WfHm34nTd7EMbCEyxnAw&s=MeJ4HAKa9ks2HYdPufedFVvF1by027R2NWVXiFML0Rs&e=.

[hogstrom]

I’ll add that to the agenda. I agree on owner, action, date and followup.

Matt Hogstrom matt@hogstrom.org +1-919-656-0564 PGP Key: 0x90ECB270 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/matt.hogstrom LinkedIn https://linkedin.com/in/mhogstrom Twitter https://twitter.com/hogstrom

From Lord of the Rings, when Frodo decides to leave the Fellowship and go to Mordor alone . . . Frodo: “I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.” Gandalf: “So do all who live to see such things. But it is not for them to decide. All you have to do is decide what to do with this time that is given to you.”

On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Mark Ackert notifications@github.com wrote:

We were not able to discuss this topic on this week’s ZLC call, my request for discussion was sent out after the weekly call.

I think the ZLC needs to discuss/vote on the following two points

1. Mandate if the work needs to be completed
2. If (1) passes vote, then declare a timeframe for completion. 1.0.0 or can it be pushed after 1.0.0?

From: John Mertic notifications@github.com Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 9:03 AM To: zowe/zlc zlc@noreply.github.com Cc: Ackert, Mark G Mark.Ackert@ca.com; Assign assign@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [zowe/zlc] Review @brightside usages for GA (#28)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of CA. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Saw this was discussed - what are next steps. I think it will be not ideal to have the brightside marks in the Zowe open source project code if that is a mark only being used by CA.

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_zowe_zlc_issues_28-23issuecomment-2D433399820&d=DwMCaQ&c=_hRq4mqlUmqpqlyQ5hkoDXIVh6I6pxfkkNxQuL0p-Z0&r=vQmyJ3cryI0pp-72rN6D25sHuAlsustGo1A1CO3U-6A&m=ypnOkhM-AA_pMByez3RIxc3WfHm34nTd7EMbCEyxnAw&s=J_mAIygqZaKFDmJvMaa5anJQu2YpC-ct-g0nj8ecPa0&e=, or mute the threadhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AhrFpmY3X6CYhq3NkGfsZRzd4s-5FLglxvks5uowfrgaJpZM4Wl3-2Da&d=DwMCaQ&c=_hRq4mqlUmqpqlyQ5hkoDXIVh6I6pxfkkNxQuL0p-Z0&r=vQmyJ3cryI0pp-72rN6D25sHuAlsustGo1A1CO3U-6A&m=ypnOkhM-AA_pMByez3RIxc3WfHm34nTd7EMbCEyxnAw&s=MeJ4HAKa9ks2HYdPufedFVvF1by027R2NWVXiFML0Rs&e=. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/zowe/zlc/issues/28#issuecomment-433502044, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACxXp5GvUc1R3nUJxrzb3hO_C5EdFlrXks5uo1RogaJpZM4Wl3-a.

[hogstrom]

Per discussion on the 10-31 ZLC meeting:

Next step: John to engage LF legal and then work with contributoer legal departments to get consensus. Update at next ZLC on 11/7/2019

[hogstrom]

I believe this issue can be closed. @jlvignaudCA indicated that there was no trademark and the Imperative project is working to rename references to Brightside to Zowe CLI.

Any other actions from an OMP perspective @jmertic ?

[armstro]

I'm ok closing since Brightside name not a trademark

[jmertic]

Did all the references get removed then? I recall this was the plan Broadcom was moving toward prior to the 1.0 release.

[MarkAckert]

The references have not yet been removed, but is in discussion on a timeline post 1.0. The CLI team also wants to move the deployment of CLI packages to the public NPM registry, and I believe the work to move from @brightside -> @zowe would take place as a part of that work (again, post 1.0).

[jmertic]

As long as Broadcom is fine with that approach, we are comfortable to.

[MarkAckert]

@jmertic @zowe/zlc @plavjanik @dkelosky @MikeBauerCA @Joe-Winchester @armstro

Hi All, The CLI squad is looking at beginning conversion of @brightside references to @zowe . Are there any concerns with beginning this conversion activity with a target deployment to the public NPM registry? I don't have the final artifact names, but we would rename @brightside/core to something specific such as @zowe/cli-core to allow sharing the namespace with future Zowe components. Joe Winchester has already reserved the @zowe namespace and I have POC'd the deployment capabilities with zowe-robot.

Thanks

[jmertic]

None from my perspective.

[Joe-Winchester]

@MarkAckert - this sounds like a great idea. We are currently on a basic plan that is "unlimited public repos" but I did notice that there was a priced plan for private repos. Is the free plan we're on going to be good enough for our capacity/needs ?

[jmertic]

@Joe-Winchester I'm unclear what the requirement for private repos - can you clarify?

[MarkAckert]

I believe the free plan suffices; everything we release will be completely open source. Ditto John's question - did you have a use case in mind for private?

[Joe-Winchester]

@MarkAckert - no scenarios in mind and I agree that for open source the public plan should suffice. I just wanted to get another pair of eyes to confirm that so we don't end up in future needing to open someone's wallet without us doing some due diligence. Tks

[jmertic]

Does this mean JIRA is not being considered for this solution going forward? I thought that was the plan...

[Joe-Winchester]

@jmertic. JIRA is a tracking issue, similar to products like waffle or zenhub. I believe the idea is to move towards zenhub which has my vote (for lots of reasons). The question Mark asked is about npmjs.org which is a way we can host node packages to align with how node deliverables such as the CLI so that we can deliver them to customers. Currently we deliver CLI either through the broadcomm bintray or else through a zip file - both of which are more foreign to a user than npmjs.org. We just wanted to verify that using the free plan for npmjs.org was good enough and the answer is Yes. I hope this helps to clafiry/explain. Git Issues are work items - we need a tool to replace waffle to track and plan these, zenhub is the obvious replacement. Jira is in the same market but IMHO a worse solution for Zowe to choose. Indepently we need a way to host the CLI node package so that customers can consume it - currently we deliver a binary file or else it's in the broadcomm bintray. We need a more industry open way to do this and npmjs.org/zowe is the right way to do this and we're all happy with staying on the free plan so no future unprepared costs or limitatations are run into

[jmertic]

Hey @Joe-Winchester - thanks for the quick response.

I feel we've likely got waaay off track on this GH issue as you are alluding to the core question around npmjs.org. Let me see what the best practices are from other projects and come back with some ideas.

Regarding JIRA - like I said I got the impression from the ZLC meeting last Wednesday that there was serious consideration for this tool. If this changed that's fine - just want to stop setting up JIRA instance for y'all if that's the case.

[hogstrom]

Closing ... other issues should be opened for Zenhub, Jira or private if needed.