Dear all,
The source release 0.34.0 RC1 for Apache Superset is baked and available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/superset/, public
keys are available
at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/superset/KEYS
We're using the 0.34 branch as the base for this first
QQ: At some point, can we update the version on Pypi? It is significantly out
of date, and would be nice if we could have a more up to date version there.
Thanks,
-- C
> On Aug 9, 2019, at 2:36 PM, Maxime Beauchemin
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The source release 0.34.0 RC1 for Apache Supers
We can start another thread to talk about "Convenience Releases"
(pypi/docker).
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:05 PM Charles Givre wrote:
> QQ: At some point, can we update the version on Pypi? It is
> significantly out of date, and would be nice if we could have a more up to
> date version there.
>
Hi all,
I believe this is a good point in time to cut the 0.34 release, as there
have been numerous important bugfixes and features introduced since 0.33,
with especially important license housekeeping in the form of removal of
requests (thanks Gianluca!) and FOSSA CI (thanks Max!). So would like
We need binding votes from the committers... 3 being the minimum. Its common to
make it clear that you are either voting binding or non binding. Binding votes
can only be cast by committers.
This is my +1, NON-binding.
Bolke
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
> Op 10 aug. 2019 om 06:16 heeft Ville Bro
It's my understanding that only PMC members can cast binding votes. Hence
my non-binding vote (committer, not PMC member). Ville
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 20:08 Bolke de Bruin wrote:
> We need binding votes from the committers... 3 being the minimum. Its
> common to make it clear that you are eithe
I built and ran some queries in SQL Lab, created some visualizations.
I did encounter an issue, which is not new, but I'd love to see fixed.
Specifically, when I attempt to create a line chart, I run the query, but in
order to actually get the visualization, I have to refresh my browser.
+1. Looked at the LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER files. Checked the
licenses of files in the distro.
Alan.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:36 AM Maxime Beauchemin <
maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The source release 0.34.0 RC1 for Apache Superset is baked and available
> at:
> ht
Ville is right, only PMC votes count for release, as the PMC is the group
delegated from the board to manage a project.
In the case of podling the PPMC's[1] vote is advisory and the Incubator PMC
(IPMC) is the legally binding vote, but mentors and the IPMC look to the
PPMC's vote as they assume th
Ah sorry yes you are right, podlings do however often combine PMC and committer
‘status’ hence my reference (committer automatically also being a PMC). It was
a call to arms basically to anyone who could vote binding. That seems to be
working a bit ;-)
B.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
> Op 12 aug
We should probably develop and evolve guidelines on what constitutes a
release blocker. For this first Apache release I think we're more focussed
on license-related topics and ASF-type requirements along with "P0"-type
blockers that would make significant portions of Superset unusable.
Bellow are
+cc Justin I'd appreciate if you could do a pass on this as you uncovered
the most issues last time
Thanks,
Max
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Maxime Beauchemin <
maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We should probably develop and evolve guidelines on what constitutes a
> release blocker. For
Vote passes!
+2 binding votes (Alan & Max)
+3 non-binding vote (Ville, Charles, Bolke)
No neutral or negative votes.
Now (assuming 2 binding votes are enough) I have to figure out what my
steps are. I think it consist of starting a vote thread similar to this one
on gene...@incubator.apache.org
HI,
> We need binding votes from the committers... 3 being the minimum. Its common
> to make it clear that you are either voting binding or non binding. Binding
> votes can only be cast by committers.
Actually only the PMC votes are binding, committer votes are not binding on
releases. In the
Hi,
and another (minor) comment.
Although committer releases are not binding they should nonetheless take the
time to vote.
First, because they could become PPMC members and second because although the
VOTE is not binding, it may nonetheless be recognized and could have influence.
Julian
Am 1
Hi all,
+1 (binding IPMC Vote, which carries over to the general list).
I checked:
- Checked out release
- Verified hashes
- Verified incubating in names
- No binaries in release
- Checked NOTICE and LICENSE.txt, README
- Started superset from sources using ` docker-compose run --rm superset
./d
This is helpful, thank you for the comments, now we have 2 threads though
the `dev@` and `general@` and votes on both sides. It looks like many PPMC
& IPMC added their vote on the `general@` thread. I'm a bit confused on how
to do the accounting but I'm pretty sure we now have all the votes we need
Hi Max,
yeah, it looks a bit messed up but thats no Issue : )
I would suggest to write a final "[RESULT][VOTE]" Thread on the dev@ mailing
list and simply leave the IPMC Vote going.
After the 72hrs you can also post the result there.
It is usual and a good practice that mentors or other IPMC mem
We should have a 3rd PPMC vote. If we can get Thejas or Jakob to vote as
mentors that will give us another PPMC vote and one more IPMC vote.
Alan.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:26 PM Maxime Beauchemin <
maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vote passes!
>
> +2 binding votes (Alan & Max)
> +3 non-bin
I can take a look at the release today and vote.
On 8/15/19 3:51 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
We should have a 3rd PPMC vote. If we can get Thejas or Jakob to vote as
mentors that will give us another PPMC vote and one more IPMC vote.
Alan.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:26 PM Maxime Beauchemin <
maximeb
+1 (binding)
* Some LICENSEs appear to be missing; can be fixed next release
* Artifact contains rc1 suffix; usually this isn't the case. Not sure
if the IPMC will be concerned
* Sig looks good
* DISCLAIMER/LICENSE (other than above)/NOTICE look good
* Spot check on headers look good
-Jakob
On T
@mentors, so should I kick off a vote with general@ now?
Max
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:00 PM Jakob Homan wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> * Some LICENSEs appear to be missing; can be fixed next release
> * Artifact contains rc1 suffix; usually this isn't the case. Not sure
> if the IPMC will be concer
Yes.
Alan.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:45 PM Maxime Beauchemin <
maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @mentors, so should I kick off a vote with general@ now?
>
> Max
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:00 PM Jakob Homan wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> > * Some LICENSEs appear to be missing; can be fixed
Alan
Are you ipmc member as well? If so does your vote carry forward to the ipmc
together with Jakob’s? Maybe its good to include that?
B.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
> Op 16 aug. 2019 om 22:10 heeft Alan Gates het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Yes.
>
> Alan.
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:45
Yes, mentors are required to be part of the IPMC. When Max starts the
thread on general I'll forward my +1. So we'll just need one more, since
we also have Jakob's.
Alan.
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 2:50 AM Bolke de Bruin wrote:
> Alan
>
> Are you ipmc member as well? If so does your vote carry
Hi Alan,
two things I noticed.
First, if the VOTE is already closed there should be a separate thread
"[RESULT][VOTE] xxx" where you summarize the results.
Second, if the vote is not yet closed I can offer to also check the release and
cast a +1 binding IPMC Vote.
It is best to have as much IPMC
26 matches
Mail list logo
