On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time back we moved to having 3 mentors, which had the positive of more
> hands and enough binding votes, but the downside of no single person "on the
> hook" for a podling's reporting and progress towards graduation.
>
> Should
Hi everyone,
As The Empire-db team just voted for graduation on the dev list we
hereby propose our resolution. We plan to have our final graduation
vote later this week.
## Resolution to create a TLP from graduating Incubator podling
X. Establish the Apache Empire-db Project
WHEREAS, the
On 21 November 2011 08:42, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some time back we moved to having 3 mentors, which had the positive of more
>> hands and enough binding votes, but the downside of no single person "on the
>> hook" for a
The release vote has passed the PPMC:
+1 from Brock Noland, Patrick Hunt, Eric Sammer, Chris Mattmann (count
= 4)
-1 (count = 0)
Patrick and Chris are on the IPMC, so we need one more IPMC +1 VOTE to release.
Cheers,
Brock
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
> This is the firs
Is there a plan for promoting this project to top level status? If so,
is there a projected timeline?
I would like to use this for our client, but will be potentially
difficult with this project not being "officially" release.
Does anyone have suggestions for how to handle a conversation abo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Michael Kelleher wrote:
> Is there a plan for promoting this project to top level status? If so, is
> there a projected timeline?
Unless you specify which project you aim to graduate, I can only
assume it is the incubator itself, which is already top level.
> Do
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 21 November 2011 08:42, Robert Burrell Donkin
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Some time back we moved to having 3 mentors, which had the positive of more
>>> hands and enough binding votes
Which project are you speaking about?
This is the general list at which mich projects are discussed
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Michael Kelleher wrote:
> Is there a plan for promoting this project to top level status? If so, is
> there a projected timeline?
>
> I would like to use this for
Hi all,
To be able to start a formal vote, we need an additional mentor.
Is someone interested ?
Thanks,
Regards
JB
On 11/11/2011 11:49 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Thanks for the update Marcel, and sorry for the late answer.
I updated the Fediz proposal with your comment.
Thanks again,
On Nov 21, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 21 November 2011 08:42, Robert Burrell Donkin
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Some time back we moved to having 3 mentors, which had the positive of more
>>> hands and enough binding votes, bu
On 21 November 2011 01:56, ant elder wrote:
> That seems an unusual approach to building the src. It also means that
> to build the complete 0.8.0 release which contains 60 something
> modules would require manually typing in over 400 commands which is
> not very practical, i doubt anyone who vote
+1 (non-binding).
It would be great to see Ace as a top level project.
Best regards,
David Bosschaert
On 19 November 2011 01:33, Julien Vermillard wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> On Friday, November 18, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> +1 binding
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:4
On Saturday, November 19, 2011, Brett Porter wrote:
> ...Should we appoint one of the mentors at the start to be the "chair" of
> the PPMC, in the same way as a full project? I would see them as
> responsible for ensuring the podling is reporting, and that all of the
> mentors are engaged and sign
+1
binding ...
Cheers,
Alex
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM, wrote:
> +1 (non-binding).
> It would be great to see Ace as a top level project.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David Bosschaert
>
> On 19 November 2011 01:33, Julien Vermillard
> wrote:
> > +1 binding
> >
> > On Friday, November 18, 2011,
On 21 November 2011 07:40, Bilung Lee wrote:
> This will be the first incubator release for Apache Sqoop, version
> 1.4.0-incubating.
>
> We got two IPMC votes from our dev list and are looking for a third.
> Thanks!
>
> *** Please cast the vote by November 23, 2011 ***
>
> Dev list vote result:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Saturday, November 19, 2011, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> ...Should we appoint one of the mentors at the start to be the "chair" of
>> the PPMC, in the same way as a full project? I would see them as
>> responsible for ensuring the podli
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
>... in the past I have already doubt the sense of a "champion". Now with
> this new role it would make more sense to me. Therefore I would like
> the idea that the Champion should have this role.
>
> But I think there must be a chance to
+1 on redefining the Champion role as described in this thread
(without assuming existing Champions will be happy with this new
responsibility - if a mentor is not willing to take on the role then
the podling has a problem)
Ross
On 21 November 2011 13:19, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov
On 21 November 2011 13:23, Ross Gardler wrote:
> +1 on redefining the Champion role as described in this thread
> (without assuming existing Champions will be happy with this new
> responsibility - if a mentor is not willing to take on the role then
> the podling has a problem.
Seems to me that t
Well, I agree and disagree at the same time :-).
On the one hand (as pointed out by Guillaume Nodet), we should have
generated the source distribution for each bundle. We switched to a
newer parent pom and did miss that we should have configured that.
This makes it not very practical to build the
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM, sebb wrote:
> We also don't always document the Champion - it is on the initial
> proposal, but only some status pages seem to include the information.
> Perhaps we should require it in podlings.xml?
>
> [1]
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Respo
Well IMHO i don't think this release demonstrates that the poddling
has an understanding of making or reviewing ASF releases and thats the
point of requiring releases during incubation.
The comment from Guillaume in this thread was just about naming the
SVN folder containing the tags "releases" in
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
> Well IMHO i don't think this release demonstrates that the poddling
> has an understanding of making or reviewing ASF releases and thats the
> point of requiring releases during incubation.
So you want us to do a new release? Fine, whatever, we
On 11/19/2011 1:45 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Should we appoint one of the mentors at the start to be the "chair" of the
PPMC, in the same way as a full project? I would see them as responsible for ensuring the
podling is reporting, and that all of the mentors are engaged and signing off the repo
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> Well IMHO i don't think this release demonstrates that the poddling
>> has an understanding of making or reviewing ASF releases and thats the
>> point of requiring releases during incubation.
On 21 November 2011 14:41, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>> Well IMHO i don't think this release demonstrates that the poddling
>>> has an understanding of making or reviewing ASF releases and thats the
On 21 November 2011 13:54, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM, sebb wrote:
>> We also don't always document the Champion - it is on the initial
>> proposal, but only some status pages seem to include the information.
>> Perhaps we should require it in podlings.xml?
>>
>>
On 11/21/11 09:41 , ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
Well IMHO i don't think this release demonstrates that the poddling
has an understanding of making or reviewing ASF releases and thats the
point of requiri
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:53 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21 November 2011 13:54, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM, sebb wrote:
>> If we agree that the Champion will have this new responsibility then I
>> think we should add the Champion to podings.xml
>> This was not neces
Bump!
I know its been a busy month on general@incubator, but if another IPMC member
can take the time to check out and vote on this release it would be
appreciated...
On 16 Nov 2011, at 16:05, Ross Gardler wrote:
> +1
> We still need another IPMC vote.
>
>
> On 14 November 2011 19:03, Paul
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 11/21/11 09:41 , ant elder wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
Well IMHO i don't think this release demonstrates that the poddling
has
This image is great, you'll be putting alongside the docs right?
On 21 November 2011 15:08, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:53 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 21 November 2011 13:54, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>>> If we agree that
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> This image is great, you'll be putting alongside the docs right?
It is already there, I have announced it before I started with Bootstrapped
See: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html
It was a *huge* discussion in w
On 11/21/11 10:11 , ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 11/21/11 09:41 , ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl Paulswrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant elderwrote:
Well IMHO i don't think this release demonstrates that
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> On 11/21/11 09:41 , ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant elder wrote:
>
> Well IMHO i don'
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM, ant elder wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Richard S. Hall
> wrote:
> >> On 11/21/11 09:41 , ant elder wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl Pauls
> wrote:
>
> On Mon,
I'm confused. In /dist/incubator/ace/, there appears
to be an *.incubator-sources.* file for each independent
module in the release. Are those not actually what they
are advertised to be? What exactly is the problem with
the previous release?
>
> From: Alex Ka
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I'm confused. In /dist/incubator/ace/, there appears
> to be an *.incubator-sources.* file for each independent
> module in the release. Are those not actually what they
> are advertised to be? What exactly is the problem with
> the previou
On 21 November 2011 15:08, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:53 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 21 November 2011 13:54, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>>> If we agree that the Champion will have this new responsibility then I
>>> think w
- Forwarded Message -
>From: Joe Schaefer
>To: Karl Pauls ; "general@incubator.apache.org"
>
>Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate ACE from the Apache Incubator
>
>
>"Hard to build" isn't a blocking criterion
>for a release; so long as the artifacts
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Forwarded Message -
> >From: Joe Schaefer
> >To: Karl Pauls ; "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> general@incubator.apache.org>
> >Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:44 AM
> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate ACE from the Apache I
On 21 November 2011 15:38, Karl Pauls wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> I'm confused. In /dist/incubator/ace/, there appears
>> to be an *.incubator-sources.* file for each independent
>> module in the release. Are those not actually what they
>> are advertised to
On 21 November 2011 15:48, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Forwarded Message -
>>From: Joe Schaefer
>>To: Karl Pauls ; "general@incubator.apache.org"
>>
>>Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:44 AM
>>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate ACE from the Apache Incubator
>>
>>
>>"Hard to build" isn't a
Shipping tests is not a formal requirement of a release.
httpd certainly doesn't offer its test suite as part of
a release- you have to download that (from svn) yourself.
- Original Message -
> From: sebb
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, November
I still think that the release is a proper release - as Karl explained
we could have done "better" source releases per module etc., but there
is nothing fundamentally wrong.
I don't think that these issues should block the project from graduation either.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziege...@apac
+1
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:42, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> In my opinion, ACE is ready to begin the process of graduating from the
> Apache Incubator to a Top Level Project.
>
> Since joining the incubator in in May 2009 we've added 4 new committers
> (12 in total now) from diverse organization
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:38 PM, sebb wrote:
> Currently it reads:
>
> "drive the process of incubation forwards which finally leads to an
> acceptance vote"
>
> The problem is that "process of incubation" can mean more than just
> entering the Incubator, and "acceptance" could refer to graduation
Totally agree.
Best regards,
David Bosschaert
On 21 November 2011 16:32, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> I still think that the release is a proper release - as Karl explained
> we could have done "better" source releases per module etc., but there
> is nothing fundamentally wrong.
> I don't think th
From what I can tell, it looks to be a good release.
+1 binding
On 11/21/2011 09:09 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:
Bump!
I know its been a busy month on general@incubator, but if another IPMC member
can take the time to check out and vote on this release it would be
appreciated...
On 16 Nov 2011,
Personally I am against the idea of picking a chair
for a podling early. It would have been a terrible
idea for thrift for instance, where a proper chair
only emerged after over a year of incubation. Had
it picked a chair early, it would undoubtedly not
have been that person, but some Facebook pe
On 21 November 2011 16:47, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Personally I am against the idea of picking a chair
> for a podling early.
That's not the proposal, although it was suggested and I believe
rejected (for reasons similar to the ones you gave), at least I've not
seen any support for it.
The proposa
Speaking wearing a hat:
There is no requirement for monolithic releases. The project can
choose whatever units it likes to release, so long as each one of them
is fully buildable from the materials voted on in the release. If they
want to hold one vote on 400 of them, well, it casts some doubt on
Gosh. Well perhaps its me that needs to go back to school then. But i
find this most unexpected. The ASF FAQ on what is a release says "All
releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make
changes to the software being released." if no unit tests are included
in the source release ca
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:11 PM, ant elder wrote:
> Gosh. Well perhaps its me that needs to go back to school then. But i
> find this most unexpected. The ASF FAQ on what is a release says "All
> releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make
> changes to the software being relea
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> On the other hand, where have we been all this time? They've shipped
> as many releases as they've shipped, and gotten votes from this PMC,
> and now, at the time of the graduation vote, all this produces a ton
> of email?
>
I agree wi
That's really a good question. I'm using apache projects a lot but I've
never downloaded a single source release since ages, mostly using svn to
checkout / build, or maven source jars for debugging within the ide as you
said.
I know it's a requirement, but it's not very useful for certain kind of
On 11/21/2011 11:11 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Speaking wearing a hat:
There is no requirement for monolithic releases. The project can
choose whatever units it likes to release, so long as each one of them
is fully buildable from the materials voted on in the release. If they
want to hold one
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 05:11:37PM +, ant elder wrote:
> I now wonder what is the point of the source release at all, other than IDE
> debugging or reading APIs, for real development you'd ave to get the SVN
> tag.
I recall some very lengthy threads in 2007-2009 regarding whether our source
co
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> That's really a good question. I'm using apache projects a lot but I've
> never downloaded a single source release since ages, mostly using svn to
> checkout / build, or maven source jars for debugging within the ide as you
> said.
> I k
On Nov 21, 2011, at 18:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 11:11 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Speaking wearing a hat:
>>
>> There is no requirement for monolithic releases. The project can
>> choose whatever units it likes to release, so long as each one of them
>> is fully buildab
If it's to address the awol mentors problem, then sure let's
do it. But someone on IPMC has to coach these people on what
belongs in a proper report, and that has yet to be addressed.
- Original Message -
> From: Ross Gardler
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
> Cc:
> S
Please, let's not try to redefine the notion of an "open source release".
The fact that you personally don't give a shit about the distribution
of sources outside subversion doesn't mean the rest of the world feels
as you do about it.
- Original Message -
> From: Alex Karasulu
> To: gen
2011/11/21 Marcel Offermans :
>
> This last paragraph is an accurate description of how we setup ACE. It is
> built out of components that are assembled in different ways at runtime
> (using OSGi). The components themselves embed enough metadata to ensure that
> (even without access to the sour
What about getting rid of the word 'champion'? Seems like there are two
roles: the Member(s) which backed the proposal to enter the incubator, and
a Coordinator.
Scott
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 21 November 2011 16:47, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Personally I am agai
On 21 November 2011 18:22, Scott Deboy wrote:
> What about getting rid of the word 'champion'? Seems like there are two
> roles: the Member(s) which backed the proposal to enter the incubator, and
> a Coordinator.
I think Champion is a good name, especially for the pre-podling phase.
Seems to m
Well its a little confusing to expect anyone other than a mentor
to shepherd a project- the corresponding "shepherd" at the TLP level
is a board member responsible for interfacing between the board
and the project on any action items post-board-meeting.
I suggest we get back to figuring out exact
My 2 cents guys:
We just need to make the Champions informed of what it means to
have "Champion-ness" :-)
I've Championed 2 proposals so far:
Gora
Any23
I just started a thread for Gora on graduating (based on Lewis John McGibbney's
original thread) and I pay attention to Gora and care a
On Nov 21, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> I suggest we get back to figuring out exactly what problem we are
> trying to solve before we start looking for appropriate labels to
> attach to the role(s) we need.
+1.
Cheers,
Chris
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: sebb
>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Well its a little confusing to expect anyone other than a mentor
> to shepherd a project- the corresponding "shepherd" at the TLP level
> is a board member responsible for interfacing between the board
> and the project on any action items pos
Add this item for discussion then:
* currently the board is overloaded with parsing and processing the IPMC
monthly reports, and would like to delegate most of that review to the
the IPMC chair, who should figure out how to delegate that to the IPMC
membership, who should figure out how to promot
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:15 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 21 November 2011 07:40, Bilung Lee wrote:
>> This will be the first incubator release for Apache Sqoop, version
>> 1.4.0-incubating.
>>
>> We got two IPMC votes from our dev list and are looking for a third.
>> Thanks!
>>
>> *** Please cast the v
On 21 November 2011 19:25, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:15 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 21 November 2011 07:40, Bilung Lee wrote:
>>> This will be the first incubator release for Apache Sqoop, version
>>> 1.4.0-incubating.
>>>
>>> We got two IPMC votes from our dev list and are l
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Add this item for discussion then:
>
> * currently the board is overloaded with parsing and processing the IPMC
> monthly reports, and would like to delegate most of that review to the
> the IPMC chair, who should figure out how to delegate th
2011/11/19 Jörn Kottmann
> Hi all,
>
> please review and vote on approving the release of Apache OpenNLP.
>
> The Apache OpenNLP library is a machine learning based toolkit for the
> processing of natural language text.
> It supports the most common NLP tasks, such as tokenization, sentence
> seg
Sam,
Do you see any validity in my theory that the ipmc is so large and
diffuse as to be directionless?
--benson
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@in
Thanks for the comments!
*> There are RAT run logs, but could not find the RAT reports.
> I did not find any issues when running RAT locally, however please
> provide the actual reports next time.*
Noted. Actual reports will be provided next time.
*> The md5 hashes have an unusual format:
> sqo
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Sam,
>
> Do you see any validity in my theory that the ipmc is so large and
> diffuse as to be directionless?
I don't see that as a necessary consequence. The ASF is large and
diffuse, yet each month we pretty consistently get 6+ Directo
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> Sam,
>>
>> Do you see any validity in my theory that the ipmc is so large and
>> diffuse as to be directionless?
>
> I don't see that as a necessary consequence. The ASF is large and
To me a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the reports are
misdirected- instead of informing the board about the activities of
the IPMC, it tells them about the podling's activities, which doesn't
scale properly.
We should be reporting to the board about OUR work, not the work of
the podl
Wow quite a thread.
+1 to the concept that the Champion is responsible for ensuring the new
PPMC has a mentor who agrees to act as acting chair for the project.
+1 to having a chair for PPMCs, to help ensure that reports are done in
a timely and appropriate fashion.
+1 to having the acting
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> To me a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the reports are
> misdirected- instead of informing the board about the activities of
> the IPMC, it tells them about the podling's activities, which doesn't
> scale properly.
>
> We should b
On 21 November 2011 23:49, Bilung Lee wrote:
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> *> There are RAT run logs, but could not find the RAT reports.
>> I did not find any issues when running RAT locally, however please
>> provide the actual reports next time.*
>
> Noted. Actual reports will be provided nex
On 22 November 2011 00:42, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>>> Sam,
>>>
>>> Do you see any validity in my theory that the ipmc is so large and
>>> diffuse as to be directionless?
>>
>> I do
I see what I did wrong.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:36 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 22 November 2011 00:42, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Benson Margulies
>>> wrote:
Sam,
Do you see any validity in my theo
+1, this sounds great to me.
Cheers,
Chris
On Nov 21, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> To me a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the reports are
> misdirected- instead of informing the board about the activities of
> the IPMC, it tells them about the podling's activities, which
On 11/21/2011 5:13 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Do you see any validity in my theory that the ipmc is so large and
diffuse as to be directionless?
Of course. It applies to the ASF as a whole.
But Incubator submissions keep coming, as (generally part of one of)
1) dev lib functionality, 2) dev
*> I see.
> Not all the packages are marked @deprecated - for example
SqoopOptions.java.
> [Also, none of the files use the @Deprecated annotation, which is odd
> for a project that uses Java 1.6]
> I don't think these are blockers.*
Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, that one (SqoopOptions) got
87 matches
Mail list logo
