Re: Contribution and committer guidelines

Hi, > Badly written code, missing and failing unit tests make it harder for > everyone to contribute. IMO having code that can be easily improved makes it easier for people to contribute. > Justin, -1 are infrequent during PR reviews in Apex. I could easily find 5 from a quick search, which i

Re: Contribution and committer guidelines

Hi, If someone submits what you think is poor quality code just point it out to them and ask them to fix it or even better fix it yourself to show them what is expected. Vetoing something list that seems a little heavy handed and is not the best way to encourage community growth. It’s better to

Re: [DISCUSS] Time for attic?

Hi, > I have a private fork for an experimental project. It might be open > sourced in a couple of months. I’m curious, if you don’t mind answering a couple of questions: As you are a committer on this project is there any reason that this work wasn’t done in public fork or even better on a bra

Re: [DISCUSS] Time for attic?

Hi, My understanding is that there was some active development in private forks? If any of that code could be contributed back here then that could restate the project and generate interest. Does anyone know is that is the case and if the people involved would be willing to do that? I do agree

Re: [DISCUSS] Time for attic?

Hi, > In the past we have made it difficult for code to be committed. Declining > contributions is normal outcome of that. We should take a look at relaxing > the threshold for commits, welcome more folks including into PMC before > looking at taking the project to attic. I also see this as part,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Core Release 3.7.0 (RC1)

Hi, +1 (binding) IMO the release is correctly signed and the vote can continue. I checked: - signature and hashes correct - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - a couple of source files are missing headers [4][5] - yes they have "Put your copyright and license info here.” but how are those files

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

Hi, > Sorry, I don't fully understand your point. Is the suggestion not to add > maven plugin and only rely on manual sanity check or do extra manual sanity > check on top of the plugin? Any reason not to go with the second approach? Up to the project, but you may find that using the plugin is

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

Hi, > The JIRA mentioned is to unblock the release. IMO the license plugin should > be taken up as separate activity. JFYI - In my experience the license plugin is not going to catch everything and tit may produce false positives. The best way is to manually look at the release artefact and it’

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

HI, > The goal of the JIRA is to review demo dependencies for the Category X > license usage, please feel free to add more information to it. At a glance the demos would IMO be considered optional and thus this would be allowed. [1] Thanks, Justin 1.https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#

Re: Malhar release 3.8.0

Hi, > Only ticket left to make a call on is APEXMALHAR-2461. Which dependancies in particular are an issue? The JIRA need a little more information I think. Thanks, Justin

Re: Remote object for Flex JS

Hi, Mopved to dev, from Alex: > I just pushed changes that include a back port of amf.js to ActionScript. How was the versions of amf.js you used licensed? James Ward’s version doesn't have a license that I could see [1] or did you use this version [2] or something else? Thanks, Justin 1. ht

Re: -1 or veto voting

Hi, Votes are only valid on code modifications with a reason. [1] However it looks to me that there’s not consensus and which way forward is best I would suggest cancelling the vote and having a discussion of the benefit or not of making the change. Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/fo

Re: [FlexJS] empty constructors in SDK

And sorry again for the noise / wrong list

[FlexJS] empty constructors in SDK

Hi, We seem to have a number of empty constructors in the SDK. Is there any reason for this as? Performance wise there’s going to be a cost with this. On the other hand we also have a number of constructors that are not light weight. AS doesn’t JIT code in constructors so best practice is to mo

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Hi, > I think, you sent the email to different mailing list. Yep I sent it to the wrong address - sorry about that. Thanks, Justin

[FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Hi, Noticed that a number of files (around 220 from a quick check) don’t have the standard license header text. For instance see [1]. Is there any particular reason for this? Note that the required header text is a little longer [2] and the files above are missing the first two sentances about

Re: binary releases

Hi, Just be aware that it may require different LICENSE and NOTICE and the contents of the binary are likely to different to the source release. [1] Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary

Re: PR merge policy

HI, > Does anybody know if: > 1. Any other Apache project has a similar forced-revert policy; and None that I’m aware of. But if a committer checks in some code the breaks something and someone vetoes it, it is expected that they revert the checkin and fix it. I’ve seen this happen a few times,

Re: Using DSL api to construct sql queries

Hi, A little late here but form a quick look it should be OK. The jOOQ runtime (which I assume is the bit you want to use) is Apache licensed and what it depends is compatible. You could not bundle the jOOQ-meta-extensions in source or binary release as it depends on Category B license (MPL) w

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar Release 3.5.0 (RC1)

Hi, > I was told the content is intended for unrestricted redistribution. Have all the authors agreed to that? Are all the authors employees of DT? Have they signed the equivalents to ICLAs for that content? IMO (and again I’m not a lawyer) I think the content would need to be clearly licensed

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar Release 3.5.0 (RC1)

Hi, > For the wordcount.txt file that contains content from Project Gutenberg INAL but it seems the license [1] does place some additional restrictions [2] on you that may mean it's not APv2 compatable. i.e. you are not automatically given the ability to redistribute all books, you can’t make c

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar Release 3.5.0 (RC1)

Hi, > Content is from DT blog site, do you see an issue with it? How is that content licensed? I could find nothing at [1] all it states is "© 2015 DataTorrent” so that would mean your require permission form DataTorrent and they would need to be fine for people to redistribute it, modify it et

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar Release 3.5.0 (RC1)

Hi, Sorry but -1 until license/copyright issues resolved. I checked: - signature and hashes good - LICENSE and NOTICE good - release contains content not compatible with Apache license (see below) - no unexpected binary files - all source files have ASF headers I’m fairly sure that bundling this

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar Release 3.4.0 (RC1)

Hi, > Whoops. The disclaimer isn't needed any longer as we are now TLP and the > verification instructions need to be updated. I looked at the .tar.gz and there’s no DISCLAIMER in that. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Malhar Release 3.4.0 (RC1)

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - signatures and hashes good - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - All source files have Apache headers - No unexpected binary files - Can compile from source - Tests pass (on OSX) Thanks, Justin