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.

...

• 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
• Requirements question: IS-1099, should we allow duplicate credentials from the same issuer?
• Non-secrets in the Indy Wallet
  • Cam is working on pluggable crypto. They wallet shouldn't decide what encryption you should be using.
  • Use cases where we would want to move keys between wallets
    • Moving the link secret / credential data from one device to another (synchronized storage).
    • Debug use cases
    • Richard's hit other uses cases that were better solved with DID Doc,  pre-signing, signing API.
  • Work-around with the web-crypto API

...

•  HIPE #138, Issue #144 (Ken and Brent)
  
  • Create a PR for changing status to ACCEPTED
  • Check for an Aries RFC
•  PR to RFC #0019 to compare pack/upack to msgpack (Sergey)
•  Richard and Sergey will close old pull requests with a descriptive comment.
•  Mike wants to review the 61 cases of "unsafe" libindy calls and figure out if they are justified.

Call Recording