Hi Thomas, we (apache project) don't control the infrastructure
supported by Apache, we are merely users. Support for git is a long
running discussion at Apache, I suspect you should direct these types
of issues to infrastruct...@.
Also, I did a quick search on the INFRA jira (you might look at
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-938?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12980804#action_12980804
]
Eugene Koontz commented on ZOOKEEPER-938:
-
As Botond mentioned in ZOOKEEPER-896,
Ok, great. How are we doing with moving over the wiki? Anyone been
working on that?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-940
btw, Nigel pinged me last night, he wanted to remove the ZK tab and
make some other changes on the Hadoop site to reflect the fact that ZK
is now a TLP. I asked
Hi Ben, thanks for getting this rolling. Your committer suggestion
sounds fine to me. WRT to pre announcing, we are already giving
multiple days for a vote, also in the lead up to a release it should
be pretty obvious that one is imminent (we usually send out status
updates and such, plus the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-962?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12980860#action_12980860
]
Camille Fournier commented on ZOOKEEPER-962:
Also doesn't use my read lock
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Avery Ching ach...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions on http://incubator.apache.org/
The reason why we thought it would be best as ZooKeeper subproject was
because it is heavily dependent on ZooKeeper.
Subproj is fine if that's the way you want
We detailed the licensing as part of the internal Yahoo! open source process
(took over a year!).
Great suggestions on licensing section breakdown. Will do. I agree it would
be very nice to transition the http server to using an included category A
library rather than relying on
i've added it to the cwiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ZooKeeperBylawsProposal
i don't mean the pre-annouce time to stretch things out. it's really to
make sure the status updates go out. as we get more committers we need
to make sure that there is a heads up that
Why don't we see if it becomes a problem and then add it to our
process rather than codifying in the bylaws. That work?
Patrick
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Benjamin Reed br...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
i've added it to the cwiki:
I agree with Pat on this one. Ben, we do send out notices saying that we are
cleaning up patches and if folks want to add to the release or think some
jira should be there to voice there concern. I am not sure whats the
significance of adding it to the bylaws? We can definitely add it to how to
Please note this change.
-- Forwarded Message
From: Nigel Daley
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:44:34 -0800
To: Mahadev Konar
Subject: Re: triggering automated precommit testing
yup.
On Jan 12, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Mahadev Konar wrote:
Nigel,
Is this true with zookeeper builds as well?
Thanks
11 matches
Mail list logo
