Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC2
HI, +1 binding - vote correct (I assume so) - md5 and signatures correct - incubating in artefact name - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE correct (but a couple of minor things see below) - no binary files in source release - all source files have correct headers - can compile from source Minor things I noticed, you might (or might not) want to change these in a future release. - Apache v2 software listed in LICENSE but not required as per [1]. But having them listed does make reviewing easier, especially as you have both the MIT and Apache licensed versions of bootcamp in your source distribution. Also means you can check if Apache Thrift NOTICE has been taken into account (it has/nothing required). - bootstrap is MIT license is since 3.2.0 (I think), not 3 as mentioned in LICENSE [2], 3.x has been both Apache and MIT licensed - There's some empty files in distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/ I assume that because the bundled software in question doesn't have a NOTICE file? - year in NOTICE is incorrect (2013 not 2014) - one or two text files don't have Apache headers (eg distribution/src/main/scripts/conf/default_zoo.cfg) Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep 2. https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/commit/cb40a2ee8c88efdec0c35adf173cc96ba25db21e - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC2
Hi, > Honestly, I'm not sure what the canonical place for you to look up > PPMC members IMO that's needed to review votes. > Are you interested in helping review/vote on our release or just > debating the incubator policy stuffs? I'm just looking at it now. Sorry for polluting the VOTE thread. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Argus as a new incubator project
+1 (binding) Regards JB On 2014-07-23 22:32, Arun Murthy wrote: +1 (binding) Arun On Jul 21, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: Following the discussion earlier, I'm calling a vote to accept Argus as a new Incubator project. The proposal draft is available at: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ArgusProposal, and is also included below. Vote is open for 72h and closes at 24 July 2014 at 10am PST. [ ] +1 accept Argus in the Incubator [ ] +/-0 [ ] -1 because... I'm +1. .. Owen -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC2
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> It requires 3 +1 votes on the podling list, they then bring it here
>> for the 3+1 *binding* votes. In our case we got 4 total +1 {2 IPMC
>> members; 2 PPMC members} and came here for the third binding vote. I
>> think the Aaron was precise in his usage of "+1 votes" and "+1 binding
>> votes". Mine and Patrick's vote carry through here leaving us 1 shy of
>> 3 binding +1 votes from IPMC members. I'm not seeing the point of
>> confusion here.
>
> The confusion is that the 2 PPMC votes were not stated as votes by the PPMC
> and could of been from anyone.
Thanks Justin, yes they're both PPMC members.
> Are IPMC votes consider binding on a podlings dev list and count toward the
> initial +3? I'm assuming so but I can't find it stated anywhere.
Yes. If you're a member of the IPMC and cast a vote on a podling list,
it's binding. <-there. stated somewhere now:)
> If the other two votes were not by PPMC then there only +2 votes and so it's
> not valid.
They were, so this is a non-issue.
> I note that Chris is not listed here [1] but is on the initial committer list
> [2] and there's no
> team page on the Blur site listing out the PPMC members. I assume they are
> PPMC
> votes but as an outsider it's hard to know.
Honestly, I'm not sure what the canonical place for you to look up
PPMC members - I've never really cared because they're not binding.
Since you give some meaning to [1] - I've done what needs to be done
to get Chris added there, not sure how long it will take to show up.
Are you interested in helping review/vote on our release or just
debating the incubator policy stuffs?
Thanks,
--tim
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HDT version 0.0.2.incubating (RC1)
We have requested the mentors. Also we could some help from IPMC. regards Rahul On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Rahul Sharma wrote: > I would request the mentors to have a look at the artifacts. > > thanks, > Rahul > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Rahul Sharma >> wrote: >> > ...Vote Result : >> > http://apache.markmail.org/message/l3ypavj4rnm2fnwv ... >> >> I don't see votes from your mentors there, you might want to ask them >> to review this release. >> >> -Bertrand >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> >
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC2
Hi,
> It requires 3 +1 votes on the podling list, they then bring it here
> for the 3+1 *binding* votes. In our case we got 4 total +1 {2 IPMC
> members; 2 PPMC members} and came here for the third binding vote. I
> think the Aaron was precise in his usage of "+1 votes" and "+1 binding
> votes". Mine and Patrick's vote carry through here leaving us 1 shy of
> 3 binding +1 votes from IPMC members. I'm not seeing the point of
> confusion here.
The confusion is that the 2 PPMC votes were not stated as votes by the PPMC and
could of been from anyone.
Are IPMC votes consider binding on a podlings dev list and count toward the
initial +3? I'm assuming so but I can't find it stated anywhere.
If the other two votes were not by PPMC then there only +2 votes and so it's
not valid. I note that Chris is not listed here [1] but is on the initial
committer list [2] and there's no team page on the Blur site listing out the
PPMC members. I assume they are PPMC votes but as an outsider it's hard to know.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#blur
2. http://incubator.apache.org/projects/blur.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC2
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi
>
>> Apache Blur isn't under the [new] alternate process, if that's what
>> you're referring to. I'm still under that impression [as one of the
>> mentors] that we require 3 binding IPMC votes.
>
> I may be mistaken but I thought it required 3 +1 binding votes on the podling
> dev list and then 3 +1 IPMC votes on this list for a release? [1]
>
> I read "+1 votes" as "+1 binding votes" in [1]. Anyone want to clarify?
It requires 3 +1 votes on the podling list, they then bring it here
for the 3+1 *binding* votes. In our case we got 4 total +1 {2 IPMC
members; 2 PPMC members} and came here for the third binding vote. I
think the Aaron was precise in his usage of "+1 votes" and "+1 binding
votes". Mine and Patrick's vote carry through here leaving us 1 shy of
3 binding +1 votes from IPMC members. I'm not seeing the point of
confusion here.
Thanks,
--tim
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC2
Hi > Apache Blur isn't under the [new] alternate process, if that's what > you're referring to. I'm still under that impression [as one of the > mentors] that we require 3 binding IPMC votes. I may be mistaken but I thought it required 3 +1 binding votes on the podling dev list and then 3 +1 IPMC votes on this list for a release? [1] I read "+1 votes" as "+1 binding votes" in [1]. Anyone want to clarify? Thanks, Justin 1. http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC2
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > HI, > >> 2 x +1 binding votes >> 2 x +1 non-binding votes > > Aren't IPMC votes binding so that would be 4 +1 binding votes? Hi Justin, Apache Blur isn't under the [new] alternate process, if that's what you're referring to. I'm still under that impression [as one of the mentors] that we require 3 binding IPMC votes. If that's changed and I missed it, let me be the first to buy you a beer at the next ApacheCon for enlightening us:) Thanks, --tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC2
HI, > 2 x +1 binding votes > 2 x +1 non-binding votes Aren't IPMC votes binding so that would be 4 +1 binding votes? Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC2
We've held a vote on blur-dev to release the 0.2.3-incubating version of Apache Blur. The vote thread can be found here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-blur-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAB6tTr0kZyjp82m%3DWO%3Di_8-%3DLQV5Hz13AB6dQ0%3DrDc93iBCjeg%40mail.gmail.com%3E The vote passed with: 2 x +1 binding votes 2 x +1 non-binding votes A summary email can be found here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-blur-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAB6tTr2PbONLYxkCHDZBCvp2gshQjT%3DwD%3D03_%3DHfjM1n4R0ktA%40mail.gmail.com%3E The source and binary release artifacts can be found together with signatures here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/blur/0.2.3-incubating/ Please vote on this release. Thanks! Aaron
Re: [VOTE] Argus as a new incubator project
+1 (binding) Arun > On Jul 21, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > > Following the discussion earlier, I'm calling a vote to accept Argus as a > new Incubator project. > > The proposal draft is available at: > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ArgusProposal, and is also included > below. > > Vote is open for 72h and closes at 24 July 2014 at 10am PST. > > [ ] +1 accept Argus in the Incubator > [ ] +/-0 > [ ] -1 because... > > I'm +1. > > .. Owen -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
