Page Comparison

Summary

...

Examples of types of actions that are prohibited at Linux Foundation meetings and in connection with Linux Foundation activities are described in the Linux Foundation Antitrust Policy available at http://www.linuxfoundation.org/antitrust-policy. If you have questions about these matters, please contact your company counsel, or if you are a member of the Linux Foundation, feel free to contact Andrew Updegrove of the firm of Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the Linux Foundation.

...

• Previous Indy Contributors call
• Identity Implementors Working Group call
  • Main place to get project updates, release status, and announcements.

Release Status and Work Updates

• Indy Node
  • October: 1.11.0
    • PBFT view change
  • November: 1.11.1Bug fixes.12.0
    • Ubuntu 18.04
    • Replacing Indy Node with Ursa
    •  Remove replicas (Aardvark BFT)
    • Bug fixes
  • Future
    • Advanced Schemas and W3C creds (Ken)
• Indy SDK
  • October: 1.12.1
    • Bug fixes
    • Might skip the release
  • November
    ?
    • LibVCX support for some Aries protocols
    • Bug fixes
  • Future
    • GitLab migration alongside Jenkins (Foundation)?
    • Aries / Indy split: next step is aries-core-wallet
    • Anoncreds 2.0 (Sovrin Foundation, BC.gov?)
    • Warnings from rust cargo clippy (Mike and Axel), epic: IS-1410
• Indy Catalyst
  • Production deployment testing: volume loads.
  • Won't go live in production at BC.gov until October.
  • Not yet migrated to Hyperledger. Needs more documentation.

Work Updates

• Documentation improvements: Michael B and Stephen C
  • Need to review and prune out-of-date documentation (Alice / Faber treatment of pairwise DIDs is a key pain point)
  • Michael is working on Indy Agent walkthrough using C#
  • Finishing work on ReadTheDocs (2 more weeks?)
  • Cloud Compass is building the Linux Foundation EdX courses for Indy and Aries
  SDK 2.0 architecture / Indy-
  • Aries
  split (Sergey)
  • Evernym: A PR with an example how the wallet can be separated; this is internal work
  • Kiva is working on a Futures implementation of threading (instead of call-backs)
• CI / CD: GitLab migration (Mike and Steve G)
• Advanced Schemas and W3C creds (Ken)
• Warnings from rust cargo clippy (Mike and Axel)
  • Epic: IS-1410 
• New design for revocation / Anoncreds 2.0 (Mike)
  • Would be useful to have a comparison in performance between Anoncreds 1.0 and Anoncreds 2.0
  • Need a plan for changes to Indy Node
    • HIPE for overall changes, then a design PR for the changes specific to the different repos.
      https://github.com/hyperledger/indy-node/tree/master/design
  Replacing Indy-Crypto with Ursa in Indy Node (Mike and Cam)

Main Business

• Define the pull request review process for Indy Plenum/Node
  • Should define the process, including how we handle exceptions (emergency fixes shouldn't be blocked, but would require notification)
  • What is important in a good review?
    • Items from Evernym team:
      • covered by tests
      • has a link to the issue in Jira
      • fixed according to PoA
      • follows https://github.com/hyperledger/indy-node/blob/master/docs/source/write-code-guideline.md
  • Proposed Process (by Evernym team):
    • All Pull Requests can be reviewed by non-Evernym team members
    • Evernym team members will also do internal review in addition to external one
    • All interested parties are notified when a PR is sent
    • If a person wants to do an external review, he or she puts a comment or tag. This needs to be done in X hours.
    • Once a reviewer put a "want-to-review" tag, he or she need to finish review in Y hours
    • If no one wants to review a PR in X hours, or review is not finished in Y hours, we can do our internal review and merge the PR
    • An external review can be done against closed PRs as well, and Evernym team will process all findings ASAP
    • We may merge a PR with internal review only in case of urgency (critical fixes, release preparation etc.)
  • Items to be defined with the Community:
    1. A timeframe for external review (X):
       - X=12 hours, Y=2 days?
    2. What projects it should affect?
       - Plenum and Node?
       - Only Node?
       - We are not proposing SDK as it will be split to Aries in any case
    3. Who is going to commit to participate in this process?
• Migration of Indy-SDK to Aries-Core

...