Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Zeppelin 0.5.0-incubating released
Congratulations! On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:08 PM, moon soo Lee m...@apache.org wrote: Hi, The Apache Zeppelin team is proud to annouce the first release of Zeppelin inside the Apache incubator: 0.5.0-incubating. Apache Zeppelin is a web-based notebook that enables interactive data analytics with many different distributed computing back-end system support, to make data analytics more fun and enjoyable. This release includes interpreter for Apache Spark, Apache Flink, Apache Hive and Apache Tajo with many new features and improvements from 42 contributors. Release notes available at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org/docs/releases/zeppelin-release-0.5.0-incubating.html Release artifacts available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/zeppelin/0.5.0-incubating More details on Apache Zeppelin can be found at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org The Apache Zeppelin team would like to thank the Apache community for all their contributions, the Apache Zeppelin mentors, and last but not least, our awesome user community for using, testing, and providing valuable feedback. Thanks, The Apache Zeppelin team DISCLAIMER Apache Zeppelin is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by Apache Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Zeppelin 0.5.0-incubating released
Congratulations! On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:43 AM, 김영우 warwit...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations! On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:08 PM, moon soo Lee m...@apache.org wrote: Hi, The Apache Zeppelin team is proud to annouce the first release of Zeppelin inside the Apache incubator: 0.5.0-incubating. Apache Zeppelin is a web-based notebook that enables interactive data analytics with many different distributed computing back-end system support, to make data analytics more fun and enjoyable. This release includes interpreter for Apache Spark, Apache Flink, Apache Hive and Apache Tajo with many new features and improvements from 42 contributors. Release notes available at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org/docs/releases/zeppelin-release-0.5.0-incubating.html Release artifacts available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/zeppelin/0.5.0-incubating More details on Apache Zeppelin can be found at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org The Apache Zeppelin team would like to thank the Apache community for all their contributions, the Apache Zeppelin mentors, and last but not least, our awesome user community for using, testing, and providing valuable feedback. Thanks, The Apache Zeppelin team DISCLAIMER Apache Zeppelin is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by Apache Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but
it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of
a week ago: what would be the effective way to change the
status quo around IPMC an make it more board like?
Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually
make sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess
I can propose a change to the current policies (or to Ross'
point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)).
But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering
PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?
Thanks,
Roman.
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Ross Gardler
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Well this explains how it got this way, it was poorly worded from the start...
The first part is about incoming code (the SGA) and nothing has changed there.
The second part says SHALL formally request the Incubator PMC approve such
a release It does not say [VOTE] and it was never, IMHO, intended to be a
separate vote (unless there were insufficient IPMC votes).
Speaking personally I have always (and I know many other mentors have also,
certainly all those that have co-mentored with me) treated a vote on the
podling list as binding and a request in the form of a notification (giving
time to object if appropriate) when three positive IPMC votes have been cast.
In 2006 it said Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a
release, the Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list. At
least three +1 votes are required (see the Apache Voting Process page), and
only the PPMC member votes are binding. If the majority of all votes is
positive, then the Podling SHALL send a summary of that vote to the
Incubator's general list and formally request the Incubator PMC approve such
a release.
That's still the wording today.
I've never been challenged on this approach (having mentored many podlings).
It was my approach with the most recent release I was a part of, just last
week (Ripple). The additional reviews received from the IPMC were useful,
spotting a couple of small items, and turned up the one required +1 (only two
binding mentor votes).
Whether this is an accurate recollection of what was discussed way back, or
whether this is just a practice I (and others) have fallen into and not been
challenged on I urge the IPMC to consider this approach (of course, it does
rely on proper oversight from mentors and the IPMC, I'm comfortable with this
approach because I never vote +1 without having done due diligence on the
release - I trust others do the same).
Ross
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:05 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
wrote:
The proposed need to announce release votes on the IPMC list is how things
were when the incubator was created. The need for IPMC to control the
process is another case of the IPMC over-reaching itself and in so doing
causing problems by creating a bottleneck in the process.
It used to be that it was only required to *notify* the IPMC of a release
vote underway. Thereby giving interested IPMC members the opportunity to
review artifacts and processes during the normal release cycle. IPMC members
were expected to cast their votes on the PPMC list where such things belong.
I'd love to see links to that - my digging didn't find it. (see below)
I'm not sure where this idea that the vote actually occurs on the IPMC list
came from but it's flat wrong in my opinion (someone may dig through the
archives and find a good reason it was changed, but my feeling is that it
changed gradually through edits-on-edits-on-edits of the incubation policy).
The fact is that the PPMC (with IPMC representation from the mentors) should
be in charge of their releases, and pretty much everything else. The IPMC
role is one of teaching the PPMC how manage itself. Mentors should do this
through mentoring and the IPMC should ensure it is done through an
appropriate level of oversight (not an inappropriate amount of control).
Consider this... The board does not bring TLP release votes to board@, why
on earth must the IPMC do so?
I've half a mind to got back the wayback machine and pull the original
incubator polices and propose them as the new policies (yes, some
changes have been good, but it seems to me that many have not)
So I couldn't find anything in 2003, but 2004 has this page[1] which included
the text:
Podlings in Incubation SHALL NOT perform any releases of software without
the explicit approval of the Incubator PMC. Such approval SHALL be given only
after the Incubator PMC has followed the process detailed in (Reference to
Charter), and SHALL NOT occur
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
I wonder how much of the silence is a notion of I don't want to be
accountable if something goes wrong in this podling.
Having the IPMC safety net means its at least the IPMC's fault if something
goes wrong.
Personally, I'd be happy if the PPMCs had more self governance. But I
think there are also some key people on the IPMC that should be able to
lend their skills out to the broader PPMCs in case of need.
John
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but
it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of
a week ago: what would be the effective way to change the
status quo around IPMC an make it more board like?
Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually
make sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess
I can propose a change to the current policies (or to Ross'
point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)).
But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering
PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?
Thanks,
Roman.
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Ross Gardler
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Well this explains how it got this way, it was poorly worded from the
start...
The first part is about incoming code (the SGA) and nothing has changed
there.
The second part says SHALL formally request the Incubator PMC approve
such a release It does not say [VOTE] and it was never, IMHO, intended to
be a separate vote (unless there were insufficient IPMC votes).
Speaking personally I have always (and I know many other mentors have
also, certainly all those that have co-mentored with me) treated a vote on
the podling list as binding and a request in the form of a notification
(giving time to object if appropriate) when three positive IPMC votes have
been cast.
In 2006 it said Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform
a release, the Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list.
At least three +1 votes are required (see the Apache Voting Process page),
and only the PPMC member votes are binding. If the majority of all votes is
positive, then the Podling SHALL send a summary of that vote to the
Incubator's general list and formally request the Incubator PMC approve
such a release.
That's still the wording today.
I've never been challenged on this approach (having mentored many
podlings). It was my approach with the most recent release I was a part of,
just last week (Ripple). The additional reviews received from the IPMC were
useful, spotting a couple of small items, and turned up the one required +1
(only two binding mentor votes).
Whether this is an accurate recollection of what was discussed way back,
or whether this is just a practice I (and others) have fallen into and not
been challenged on I urge the IPMC to consider this approach (of course, it
does rely on proper oversight from mentors and the IPMC, I'm comfortable
with this approach because I never vote +1 without having done due
diligence on the release - I trust others do the same).
Ross
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:05 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
the Apache Incubator)
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
The proposed need to announce release votes on the IPMC list is how
things were when the incubator was created. The need for IPMC to control
the process is another case of the IPMC over-reaching itself and in so
doing causing problems by creating a bottleneck in the process.
It used to be that it was only required to *notify* the IPMC of a
release vote underway. Thereby giving interested IPMC members the
opportunity to review artifacts and processes during the normal release
cycle. IPMC members were expected to cast their votes on the PPMC list
where such things belong.
I'd love to see links to that - my digging didn't find it. (see below)
I'm not sure where this idea that the vote actually occurs on the IPMC
list came from but it's flat wrong in my opinion (someone may dig through
the archives and find a good reason it was changed, but my feeling is that
it changed gradually through edits-on-edits-on-edits of the incubation
policy).
The fact is that the PPMC (with IPMC representation from the mentors)
should be in charge of their releases, and pretty much everything else. The
IPMC role is one of teaching the PPMC how manage itself. Mentors should do
this through mentoring and the IPMC should ensure it is done through an
appropriate level of oversight (not an inappropriate amount of control).
Consider this... The board does not bring TLP release votes to board@,
why on earth must the IPMC do so?
I've half a mind to got back the
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: what would be the effective way to change the status quo around IPMC an make it more board like? The Board works very hard to provide thorough review of the reports it receives. While IPMC review of podling reports is better than it used to be, there is still room for improvement, particularly in the realm of cross-cutting feedback. Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually make sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess I can propose a change to the current policies (or to Ross' point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)). We worked hard to improve the situation around releasing and we succeeded. The Incubator today produces higher quality releases more efficiently and with less contention than it ever has before. To address the specific point about voting, there have been a number of times when release votes are run simultaneously on the podling dev list and general@incubator. It's fine. I tend not to recommend it simply because most podlings screw up RC release mechanics a lot and going through several trivial RCs adds noise to general@incubator. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
