Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Get a passing CII Badge #8

Closed
caniszczyk opened this issue Mar 11, 2020 · 14 comments
Closed

Get a passing CII Badge #8

caniszczyk opened this issue Mar 11, 2020 · 14 comments

Comments

@caniszczyk
Copy link

We require CNCF projects to go through this badging process:
https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en

@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member

Working on this but need access to org, normally @jeffhollan has received a notification.

@jeffhollan
Copy link
Member

@tomkerkhove just gave you owner access. You should be good to go. Thank you 🙏

@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member

Badge is being added via kedacore/keda#691 but we need to improve a bit

@turbaszek
Copy link

Should we be able to check out:

  • Unique version numbering points 1 and 3. As the 2.0 is on the horizon should KEDA project agreed to use a versioning approach?
  • Bug-reporting process points 2 and 5
  • Automated test suite point 1
  • Static code analysis points 1, 4 and 2 (this one is vague for me)

@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove self-assigned this Sep 7, 2020
@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member

Looks like it's no longer assigned to me. Thanks for the reminder @turbaszek!

Adding @zroubalik who might want to help here.

  • Static code analysis points 1, 4 and 2 (this one is vague for me)

It's vague for me as well but think it enforces a set of tools for which we might want to consider leaving it as-is. Do keep in mind we are setting up Snyk as well which does the security side of things.

Maybe @caniszczyk can provide some input here.

  • Unique version numbering points 1 and 3. As the 2.0 is on the horizon should KEDA project agreed to use a versioning approach?

In terms of versioning, I honestly think we are good to go but maybe it's because we prefix with v 🤔

  • Bug-reporting process points 2 and 5

I've just updated this with the required links, thanks!

  • Automated test suite point 1

We already have this in Go so not sure what to change to meet the FLOSS requirement here. Any thought @zroubalik? Maybe we can have a look at other projects how they approach this. Or I can add a link to our tests.

@zroubalik
Copy link
Member

Automated test suite is IMHO covered by our e2e tests, which runs periodically every day (night 😄) and runs with each commit merged to the main branch.

@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member

tomkerkhove commented Sep 8, 2020

I'll update it asap with that, was my thinking as well

@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove transferred this issue from kedacore/keda Nov 26, 2020
@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove moved this to Todo in Governance Feb 23, 2022
@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member

Did another round of updates but @JorTurFer will jump in and skim it from a dev side as well.

@JorTurFer JorTurFer self-assigned this Jun 22, 2022
@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member

@JorTurFer Can you check if we can build with purely FLOSS tooling and if we block warnings?

@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove moved this from Todo to In Progress in Governance Aug 2, 2022
@JorTurFer
Copy link
Member

Sure, I'll do it during this week

@JorTurFer
Copy link
Member

This is the issue about reproducible builds. We can mark as meet those checks once it's fixed

@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member

CII Best Practices

We are now passing, @caniszczyk do we need silver/gold as well?

@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove moved this from In Progress to In Review in Governance Aug 9, 2022
@caniszczyk
Copy link
Author

caniszczyk commented Aug 9, 2022 via email

@tomkerkhove
Copy link
Member

I have created #67 to follow-up on silver/gold

@tomkerkhove tomkerkhove moved this from In Review to Done in Governance Aug 9, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants