Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache RocketMQ from podling to TLP

+1 - great job everyone

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.1.0(incubating)(RC1)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name includes incubating - signatures and hashes correct - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - All source files have apache headers - No binary files in release - Can compile from source The binary distribution (with different license and notice files) al

Re: [DISCUSS] Import Maintainer Mechanism for Apache RocketMQ

Hi, > So we want to import the maintainer mechanism for Apache RocketMQ to > promote the development of community efficiently, but I am not sure whether > it's ok for a incubator project, please mentors let me know If there are > any problems. I think it was probably introduced on those projects

Re: [Big Data] RocketMQ community-Master election

Hi, > As I known, the 'master' here mainly means one of the github project member > roles, others are 'guest' 'reporter' 'develop'. The one who was elected as > 'master' will be granted master privileges to the project, here is the 'Big > Data' project. Then the 'master' could be easily manage

Re: Podling Report Reminder - April 2017

Hi, > I have finished the necessary content for the april podling report. Thanks for putting that together, it's looks good. I’d suggest some minor adjustments. First off there's no need to list completed items under the important issues section. The board what still needs to be done to gradua

Re: [Big Data] RocketMQ community-Master election

Hi, > As I known, the 'master' here mainly means one of the github project member > roles, others are 'guest' 'reporter' 'develop'. The one who was elected as > 'master' will be granted master privileges to the project, here is the 'Big > Data' project. Then the 'master' could be easily manage

Re: Disagree with"https://rocketmq.apache.org/the-correct-posture-of-submitting-pull-request/"fork origin repository

Hi, > [1] > https://rocketmq.apache.org/the-correct-posture-of-submitting-pull-request/ You may want to make it clear that GitHub is a read only mirror of the original git repo at Apache not the original repo. Thanks, Justin

Re: External GitHub repos

Hi, > Those repos are the temporary repos for the second RocketMQ code marathon. I get that it may be easier to use external repos, but that may possibly indicate an issue of not voting in committers soon enough? > the code on the review after the merge together to Apache external repo How is

Re: Disagree with "https://rocketmq.apache.org/the-correct-posture-of-submitting-pull-request/" fork origin repository

Hi, > https://rocketmq.apache.org/the-correct-posture-of-submitting-pull-request/ > > As the blog describe, people who need send pull request, must fork a > repository belong to > > https://github.com/dongeforever That is not the correct URL. The correct URL is: git://git.apache.org/incubator-

Re: [Big Data] RocketMQ community-Master election

Hi, Can you please explain what is going on here, as it’s not clear what is going on to me. What / who is an "master” and what is their role? Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] About the Jira issue

Hi, Is it that the review process it hold up closing these JIRAs or people just not closing them? Thanks, Justin

Re: External GitHub repos

Hi, > Sorry to response for this problem, we replace this word with use :-) It’s a minor issue but I think it’s important to make that distinction. > As fo these problems, stevenschew will do this later~ Why is it Steven's job? We’re all volunteers here and I think all of the PMC needs discuss

External GitHub repos

Hi, We’ve discussed this before [4] but I can see many links to new external GitHub repos on this page [1] on the Apache RocketMQ site. What are the reasons for the new external GitHub repos? IMO the GitHub repo at [2] should be closed down and all code moved to Apache RocketMQ repository as w

Re: Individuals not companies

Hi, > I have resolved it :-) Thanks for that. I assume the change are not live yet? > Agree~ we will polish here using some formal picture about external companies > and paste customer experience about the usage of the Apache RocketMQ. Again I think Community page may not be the best place for

Individuals not companies

Hi, I noticed on this page [1] there a link [2] to a non Apache GitHub issue I think it would be best if that was removed. It would also be better IMO to reword it to “Who’s using Apache RocketMQ” as companies are not involved in Apache projected individuals are. [3] I would also expect the Co

Re: The new branching model has been put into effect.

Hi, > Yes, we have already added [2] to the end of [1] as a reference, but we > didn't try to touch the author for the permission from now. Adding a reference may not be enough depending on how the original content is licensed. AFAICS the image are copyright the original author and is not under

Re: The new branching model has been put into effect.

Hi, Also it looks like the images used on that page [1] are from here [2]. Do you know how they are licensed and do you have permission to use them? Thanks, Justin 1. http://rocketmq.incubator.apache.org/docs/branching-model 2. http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

Re: Is extracting some source codes from one apache project to another one appropriate?

Hi, > My question: Is it appropriate that extracting ActiveMQ's JMS selector > implementation into RocketMQ codebase(maybe we will add some extensions > upon it)? It not considered good form to copy other projects code and put into our repo. It would be better to collaborate on the code in their

Re: The sub projects' migration work has been completed

Hi, > And we want to adopt the same way in the second code marathon: > 1. Launch and develop the sub project in [1] at the initial stage. > 2. Migrate the stable and fully functional sub projects to > rocketmq-externals, meanwhile vote the top contributors as a committer. > > Does it ok ? I thin

Re: The new branching model has been put into effect.

Hi, I also don't see there's a real need to split master and develop. In project where we had this split it just ends up being more work, people accidentally check into the wrong branch and I’ve see a lot of merge issues. That being said the project is free to select whatever model they want.

Re: The sub projects' migration work has been completed

Hi, > We have migrated three sub projects from rocketmq community to apache > repo.[1] > > And there are three JIRA components have been created for sub projects: > 1. rocketmq-jms > 2. rocketmq-console-ng > 3. rocketmq-flume-ng Do we have ICLAs [1] for all contributors? or at least the major co

Re: The new branching model has been put into effect.

Hi, > Our new branching model has been put into effect, more details please refer > to [1]. I find it a little odd that seems to be have been decided upon off list. Sorry if I’m mistaken or missed it being discussed. While gitflow was popular, these days it’s recognised to have same issues for

Re: Podling Report Reminder - March 2017

Hi, Sorry if I misunderstand anything her or something is getting lost in translation. > As we have control for these repos, we are able to control the quality of > releases. Who is we here? The we should be Apache RocketMQ project not an external project on GitHub. > So the current state is

Re: Podling Report Reminder - March 2017

Hi, > we hope to one repository for all RocketMQ integration projects, is it ok ? j One or many repo are possible and ether are fine. It’s up to the PPMC. > I’m also wondering how sustainable / scalable the "3 guys review mechanism” > is going to be going forward. Anyone have any thoughts on th

Re: Podling Report Reminder - March 2017

Hi, > Thank you for the feedback, this is why I post calls to contribute to the > reports to the dev@ list. Unfortunately, this report has already been > submitted. It can still be edited here [1]. When that says final it can’t be. Thanks, Justin 1. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2017

Re: Podling Report Reminder - March 2017

Hi, It a little odd to have 2 of the 3 steps marked as complete I think this needs to be updated and mention non complete things. 1. Confirm the IP review is complete. – COMPLETE 2. Make our first Apache release and vote in our first committer / PMC members. – COMPLETE 3. Grow the commun

Re: [DISCUSS] How to handle sub projects of RocketMQ

Hi, > +1, one repo for all external projects in Apache Group. it can reduce > management and delivery cost. Also let it under Apache and Apache RocketMQ > umbrella :-) Just remember that unlike SVN checking out a subtree in Git can be painful (look up sparse checkouts or branch filters). Just

Re: [DISCUSS] How to handle sub projects of RocketMQ

Hi, > 2. Create separate apache repos, but this way may produce overmuch repos of > RocketMQ, and I'm not sure this is allowed. It’s fine to have multiple repos. > 3. Keep these projects in[1], provide links and introductions in README or > our rocketmq-site. IMO -1 to that as it fragments the

Re: Looking for contributors for sub-project RocketMQ-JMS

Hi, > Now RocketMQ-JMS project has accumulated about 20 features, and we are > looking for new contributors to promote this project more quick. If you > hope to contribute something for RMQ, it's also a good place to do it. Is there any intention to move this project off github and into the Apa

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating) (RC3)

Hi, > - README points to "rocketmq community" as a github page Yes they are aware this is an issue. > - fastjson (missing NOTICE) Why is this an issue? Fastjson is mentioned in LICENSE and the 3rd party repo contains no NOTICE file (which is rather common sadly). > - commons-cli (missing NOTI

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating) (RC3)

Hi, > On 16 Feb 2017, at 6:05 pm, vintagewang wrote: > > +1 binding Not a binding vote as only incubator PMC members votes are binding here as explained on the Apache RocketMQ dev list. While I appreciate the enthusiasm can Apache RocketMQ PPMC members please not vote here, especially if you

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating) (RC3)

Hi, +1 binding (carried over from dev list) All the usual things checked for only a couple of minor issue found the convenience binary is missing an EPL license and IMO the README needs some work. The RocketMQ website [1]also needs some incubator branding (missing disclaimer for instance) but

Re: [RESULT][VOTE][#3]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, No issue here but just a note on binding votes. For top level project only PMC members have binding votes on releases, for incubator projects on the PPMC there's not really any binding vote as such but it’s expected that you need 3 +1 votes from anyone on the PPMC. Once the vote goes to th

Re: [RESTART][VOTE][#3]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - incubating in names - signatures correct - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have ASF header - No unexpected binary files in release - Can compile from source - All tests pass (tested on OSX) A couple of minor issues that IMO can be fixed next release: - th

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > * It's definitely odd to point to Maven central and Github for incubating > project releases It’s more than odd, it’s not in line with policy. You must point to the primary source of distribution at Apache, Maven and Github can be mentioned as secondary distribution points but should not

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > Since our new vote has been opened for almost 72 hours and has 4 votes from > initial committers, can we announce the result and call a vote in IPMC now? It’s best to wait 72 hours and I’d also wait until you have a least one vote by a mentor. Sorry I’ve been a bit busy and not got to it

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > So we can use the LICENSE and NOTICE files of `master branch` version for our > bin artifact, while use the LICENSE and NOTICE of a old version[1][2] for our > source artifact. Does it ok? That looks right to me. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > I updated the LICENSE file, the non ASF ALv2 licenses has been added to our > LICENSE file, and I think the mentioned [3],[4],[5] and [9] have been > resolved. In LICENSE rather than "binary dependency” I would put “bundles”. There are dependancies not listed and it the fact that they are

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > I am not sure how to seperate LICENSE and NOTICE files for the source and > binary packages, Do you mean we need add four files at top level of the > source tree ? LICENSE and NOTICE for source release, while LICENSE-BIN and > NOTICE-BIN for binary release. That look good to me, as long as

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > Justin, you are right, I have polished the LICENSE and NOTICE files, would > you please check help us check it again at your convenience? > > [1]. https://github.com/apache/incubator-rocketmq/blob/master/LICENSE > [2]. https://github.com/apache/incubator-rocketmq/blob/master/NOTICE >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > Can we call the RC3 vote now(RC3 is ready) and leave these change points in > next release? Up to the release manager, IMO it's still likely to pass a IPMC vote, so it could be done. However if we know it’s an issue and it’s easy to fix why not fix it now? I would also wait 24 hours to g

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > And there is issue being raised that EPL 1.0 is not compatible with ASL2, > but RocketMQ has a dependency on logback which is under the EPL v1.0 and > the LGPL 2.1 License[1], Does it ok? EPL is compatible with ASLv2 it just can’t be included in source form. [1] > Also could you please hel

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > The previous vote has been canceled, and we have resolved the issues > mentioned by mentors, below are change points: Just reminding people that a -1 on a release vote it not a veto, all you need for a release is 3 +1 binding votes and more +1’s than -1’s. Also being an incubating projec

Re: [RESTART][VOTE]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > Thanks for your careful check, all the issues you mentioned will be > resolved in next release, below are the related JIRA issues Always good to have JIRAs raised for release issues, the IPMC may ask for them / vote differently if they are there. > BTW, I checked that rocketmq-all-4.0.0-

Re: [RESTART][VOTE]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, +1 binding The source release has a few minor issue that can be fixed next time. The binary release does need some work in it’s LICENSE and NOTICE. I checked: - incubating in file names - hashes and signatures good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have ASF h

[DISCUSS] Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, Please put all non vote discussion here, rather than in the vote thread, as it makes it easier to count and review votes. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > This vote has been cancelled and a new vote is in progress, please check it. That’s was very prompt thanks. Next time you may want to consider waiting at least 24 hours so everyone on the mailing list gets a change to read and respond before acting. No harm done / not an issue in this cas

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > Staging repos is here[1], please check. There’s a lot of files here and it’s hard to know what exactly to review - that may make it a little more difficult for the IPMC review. > BTW, do we need copy all files in [1] to dist/dev? No please don't do that. Unless any other mentors or PPMC

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > Actually, we can't push artifacts to Nexus repo[1] so far, so we plan to > perform a source-only release, then deploy to maven central. Do we have > another way to release the binary? Usually what is done is the source and binary are voted on at the same time. Some projects make a single b

Re: Podling Report Reminder - February 2017

Hi, > Personally, I always prefer to see non-mentors create and submit the > report. Mentors role is to review and approve, or provide feedback. > Having it come from the full community makes it look a lot less top-down. +1 to that. OK by me if delete my report and we’ll report next month ins

Re: Podling Report Reminder - February 2017

Hi, Looks like Bruce who was dealing with it is currently MIA I’ll put something together. BTW it up to the PPMC to come up with the report contents not the mentors so any PPMC member could of jumped in here (for next time). Thanks, Justin

Re: Podling Report Reminder - February 2017

Hi, Anyone have anything to add to this? As this is late I post it now and then add anyone feedback. RocketMQ is a fast, low latency, reliable, scalable, distributed, easy to use message-oriented middleware, especially for processing large amounts of streaming data. RocketMQ has been incubating

Re: [REVIEW]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, A couple of other things: - You may want to discuss a draft of the announcement on the dev list before making a release. - You also want to update the download page on your incubating website [1] via the closer.cgi script. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-download-pages.

Re: [REVIEW]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > Is this process ok? Sounds good to me. You may have to wait 24 hours before announcing the release to allow for the mirrors to catch up. Take a look at the last graph on [1] Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/mirrors/

Re: Can't create or modify issues on JIRA

Hi, > Just wondering, was RocketMQ intended to have Service Desk enabled? Not that I’m aware of. Justin

Re: Can't create or modify issues on JIRA

HI, > Yes, my user name is roman_s. What is another one? Looks like there an issue I’ve raised a JIRA for you to have infra take a look. [1] Thanks, Justin 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13462

Re: Can't create or modify issues on JIRA

Hi, > The error message on creating the issue: "Assignee: The default assignee does > NOT have ASSIGNABLE permission OR Unassigned issues are turned off.” I can see that you are listed as a contributor and contributors have the assign issue and create issue permission. However I can see 2 Rom

Re: Plans for 4.0.0 release

Hi, > Thanks for you input, I mistakenly believe that we must upload RC to Nexus > before a vote, and now I have uploaded the 4.0.0-incubating RC to dist dir You can put a snapshot up for voting on if you want [1], different PPMC /PMC do this slightly differently. I prefer the dist/dev director

Re: [REVIEW]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > We want to do source-only release in dist-dir[1] and publish the binary > *.jar to maven central repo, is this ok? The convenience binary may bundle different software and so the LICENSE and NOTICE files continued inside may need to be different. [1] Has this been checked? It’s also usef

Re: [REVIEW]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > Many thanks for your scrupulous check, the mentioned > file(hs_err_pid87490.log) shouldn't be in the release, the branding issues > of rocketmq-site and the concerns in README will be resolved before a vote. As this is your first release, not everything needs to be fixed or be perfect befo

Re: [REVIEW]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, > BTW, we also need a tag to keep tracking the released source. Tags in git are changeable so it best to include a tag and a hash in the official vote email. Thanks, Justin

Re: Plans for 4.0.0 release

Hi, > @Justin > We(Apache Camel) use the nexus stage repo for release candidate > verification, as the end user may use maven to download the artifact jars > instead of just use the zip artifacts. Maven isn’t an offical realise area [1] (even if that where most people end up getting the software

Re: [REVIEW]: Release Apache RocketMQ 4.0.0(incubating)

Hi, I checked: - incubating in name - contains DISCLAIMER - LICENSE and NOTICE good. NOTICE year needs to be updated to 2017. - No unexpected binary files in source release - All source file have ASF headers - Can compile form source And that would be enough the get a +1 from me on the incubator

Re: Plans for 4.0.0 release

Hi, > Thank you for reminding, the release candidate can’t upload to Nexus at the > moment Nexus is not the primary location for a RC it need to be uploaded to [1 before a vote is caled]. If someone can point me to what is going to be released I can check it before a vote is called I also no

Re: Please respect the efforts of contributor

Hi, I don't see a huge concern here but more conversation and more detailed reasons for closing PR is always good. Helping contributors getting their PRs into shape is even better. Even if a PR needs a little work, it could be accepted and fixed by an existing committer rather than rejected or

Re: 两点建议

Hi, > For the latter one, that is, supporting JDK as lower as possible, I think > differently. 1) Maintaining lower JDK compatibility imposes potentially fewer > constraints for application developers, as is obviously beneficial to the > diverse community 2) For common and client modules, there

Re: On RocketMQ community projects

Hi, > As Apache Flink and Apache Storm use Apache License, I think it's OK to > host these modules in rocketmq incubator repo. Assuming I understand correctly in that you are writing new code to integrate with Apache Flink and Apache Storm and place that code in the RocketMQ repo that’s 100% O

Re: Podling Report Reminder - January 2017

Hi, > 2) I don't believe that all mentors are required to sign off on the podling > report, but I'm not exactly sure. Mentor sign off is mostly in the low numbers particularly at this time of year. I wouldn’t be too concerned if you don’t get all the mentors signing off. 2 or 3 is a good numbe

Re: Podling Report Reminder - January 2017

Hi, > - A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards > graduation Here’s my suggestions: 1. Confirm the IP review is complete. 2. Make our first Apache release 3. Vote in our first committer / PMC members Is 1 complete? Thanks, Justin

Re: Podling Report Reminder - January 2017

Hi, > IMO, not only the number of PR, more concerned about the quality of PR. Just try not to have the bar too high / wait too long to vote potential candidates in. This may discourage people being invoved and hinder community growth. But it’s totally up to this PPMC to decide this. > PPMC num

Re: Podling Report Reminder - January 2017

Hi, It’s probably easier to reply here and edit a wiki page if you don’t have access. Re three issues towards graduation I would list these, but there may be others. 1. Confirm the IP review is complete. 2. Make our first Apache release 3. Vote in our first committer / PMC members For the 3rd p

Re: [54/58] [abbrv] incubator-rocketmq git commit: ROCKETMQ-18 Use apache email as author.

Hi, > Can we just remove the @author annotation to avoid this kind of change? Apache is not fond of author tags as: - A file is usually edited by multiple people over time. - Version control will record who checks in what changes when. - We would rather people contact the project than committers

Re: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ 4.x roadmap

Hi, > There is only 2 weeks for the 4.0. release, I don't think we can make it. There is no need to set any hard dates for a release. As development is done by volunteers a detailed roadmap is not always possible. The release process (in particular the first time) may take a coupe of release c

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2016

Hi, > Another question, we have found some guys PR in our github mirror. How do we > handle these PRs(we have not write permission in mirror repo) after we > entered into apache ? Here’s some other projects guides [1][2] that should help. Basically you can close by mentioning a keyword ("close

Re: About Code Dump

Hi, > I just had a quick look at the code, I think we need to work on the > Artifact group change and package name change. > As we are heading to the new release of rocketmq 4.0.0, it could make sense > that we use org.apache.rocketmq instead of com.alibaba.rocketmq. While org.apache.rocketmq i

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2016

Hi, > About travis ci problems, who can i ask for help. I found the > https://travis-ci.org/apache list have not > rocketmq, May be i miss some permissions in apache github organization, so as > not to create rocketmq in here. I’ve raised an infra JIRA ticket and

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2016

Hi, > 2. Am i missing some permission for RocketMQ Jira? i want to start a roadmap > for the latest 4.0.0 release. But I have no way to create such a option > except for task and issue. Bruce as you’re the RocketMQ JIRA admin mind making me an admin or giving Von the right permissions? My user

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2016

Hi, > 1. How can we get Apache RocketMQ Travis CI import permission :-) I assume we just ask information I’ll ask for you. > 2. Am i missing some permission for RocketMQ Jira? Looks like I have no permission to grant other people permission I’ll see if I can sort that out. Thanks, Justin

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2016

Hi, > Could we not postpone report ? Yes I did request that the report be postponed. Sorry for any confusion caused there. All we would say is that we just starting out anyway. > 1. Could we use the Travis CI for our new apache incubator repository ? Yes that's possible. [1] > 2. Or In other

RocketMQ Apache repo

Hi there, I just checked the code out the git repo, fixed a couple of very minor issues (a file missing ASF header, missing DISCLAIMER and a couple of copyrights), and compiled the software (on OSX) and everything looks good to me. I also checked the dependancies of project (all good) and even

Re: [6/6] incubator-rocketmq git commit: Export bin directory. reviewed by @zhouxinyu @vongosling

Hi, > I removed *.exe files from the source repo and we will add bat scripts for > Windows user soon and later. Thanks for that - that seems a better approach. Justin

Re: [6/6] incubator-rocketmq git commit: Export bin directory. reviewed by @zhouxinyu @vongosling

Hi, It’s a little unusual to check in binary files to the source repo. I’m not sure what the purpose is here but you might possibly want to consider removing them and building them as part of building the software. Thanks, Justin

Re: About Code Dump

Hi, > We have finished the initial code dump. Could we start clean up process for > project NOTICE and LICENSE :-)? Can you provide a link to the dump? Thanks, Justin

Please introduce yourself

Hi, It would be a nice idea if everyone introduced themselves and tell each other what their involvement with this project is or will be. I’m Justin Mclean, I’m a freelance developer and have been programming for over 25 years. I’m based in Sydney, Australia. Over the last 5 years I’ve been

Re: First message to the RocketMQ dev list

Hi, > This is just a test message to be sure that the dev@rocketmq mailing list > has been set up. It’s been set up you can now also view the list here as well [1] Thanks, Justin 1. https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@rocketmq.apache.org

Signing up to private list

Hi, To people signing up to the private list can you please use your Apache email address or at least one with your name in it. Gmail address and the like could be anyone. Thanks, Justin

Re: Podling Report Reminder - December 2016

HI, > Do you plan to report this month? or pushing it back until January? Given the mailing list has just been set up this morning I think Jan would be better. Thanks, Justin

RocketMQ mailing lists

Hi, The mailing lists for RocketMQ have been set up. Please subscribe to the developer list by sending an email to: dev-subscr...@rocketmq.incubator.apache.org To the commits list by sending an email to: commits-subscr...@rocketmq.incubator.apache.org And for those on the PPMC/inital committer