On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>> On Feb 4, 2012 3:41 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> [.
+1
Checksum and signature match. Ran RAT, checked
LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER; all good. Unit tests passed. -C
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> Howdy-
> The Giraph project is excited to ask incubator for a vote on our first
> release.
>
> The vote passed within the project as
Sent from my mobile device.
On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> If I am correct Apache Flex has 2.
Fwiw we have 3: you, Bertrand, and myself.
Greg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apach
Hi Jakob,
Awesome! Sigs pass now!
[chipotle:~/tmp/giraph-0.1.0] mattmann% curl -O
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/giraph/KEYS
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
100 320
Sorry, I was under the impression that the KEY file was automatically
updated from http://people.apache.org/keys/group/giraph.asc. I've
updated it. Kindly check again.
Thanks,
Jakob
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Jakob,
>
> I have to VOTE -1 on this rele
Hi!
Thanks for the link
> And http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list
Seems like this is work in progress as well, as lots of the lines are boldly
marked as TODO ...
> That legal link is wrong, see the top of that doc.
I don't think so! The link you posted is vali
On Feb 4, 2012, at 2:48 PM, David Crossley wrote:
> Mark Struberg wrote:
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> I've quickly collected a page of things to check before casting your vote
>> for a staged release.
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/Reviewing+a+Release
>>
>> This was done f
Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> I've quickly collected a page of things to check before casting your vote for
> a staged release.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/Reviewing+a+Release
>
> This was done from the back of my head, thus I've maybe missed some parts.
>
On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:15 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 12:45 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> If it is different from Chris's then I think Bill should write his proposal.
>
> Dave, mine is not difference in process, substance or requirements.
Do you advocate the 3 Apache Members per
Hi Jakob,
I have to VOTE -1 on this release. The checksums check out, but your signature
is not present in the KEYS file, per below. If you add it to the KEYS file, I'd
be
happy to change my VOTE to a +1 should it pass verification:
[chipotle:~/tmp/giraph-0.1.0] mattmann% curl -O
http://people
On 2/4/2012 3:05 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
> I also agree with a comment from Sam on another thread about wouldn't
> it be possible to get to just a single chair candidate. That doesn't
> seem to be happening yet so as there are all these plans going on to
> get rid of the Incubator altogether can't
On 2/4/2012 12:45 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> If it is different from Chris's then I think Bill should write his proposal.
Dave, mine is not difference in process, substance or requirements.
Chris and 7 board members are now familiar with the delta, which is
really not up for incubator to choose.
On 2/4/2012 2:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> [offlist]
(sorry, trying to respond individually to keep down the noise, stupid
trackpad+palm of my thumb sometimes lets notes fly prematurely. My bad.)
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
[offlist]
On 2/4/2012 7:29 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>
> On 2/4/12 12:28 AM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
>>> could be just as problematic in the long ru
On 02/04/2012 09:15 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> We both care about this stuff, which is why we keep replying. I'm happy
> to continue to reply, so long as you are when I feel it's warranted. I've
> ignored a few of them that I didn't have the energy to, but that's the point
> of a mailing
On Feb 4, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Feb 2012, at 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>>
A number of people are asking for the incubator PMC to take a deep
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> Ralph, I'm inclined to hair up the chart to distinguish 'podlings'
>> from 'probationary projects'. Otherwise, fine. I'll do that.
>
> I see from your latest updates that you still have
On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Ralph, I'm inclined to hair up the chart to distinguish 'podlings'
> from 'probationary projects'. Otherwise, fine. I'll do that.
I see from your latest updates that you still have the podlings requiring IPMC
approval for releases and new me
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
>> On 3 Feb 2012, at 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> A number of people are asking for the incubator PMC to take a deep
>>> breath and allow room to digest and contemplate the various i
On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2012, at 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> A number of people are asking for the incubator PMC to take a deep
>> breath and allow room to digest and contemplate the various issues
>> that have led to a bumper crop of email. These are
Hey Ross,
On Feb 4, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Chris, seriously, take a break. You are not hearing what I'm trying to say
> and therefore not answering my concerns, directly at least.
I could say the same thing to you. :)
We both care about this stuff, which is why we keep replyi
Chris, seriously, take a break. You are not hearing what I'm trying to say
and therefore not answering my concerns, directly at least.
For an example see where you use the word failure in this reply - that word
has no bearing on anything I have said, yet you directly attribute it to
me.
I've mad
Ralph, I'm inclined to hair up the chart to distinguish 'podlings'
from 'probationary projects'. Otherwise, fine. I'll do that.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> I see that Ralph already removed the worst of my excesse
On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I see that Ralph already removed the worst of my excesses, and I fixed
> a few others. Are we good?
>
> I'm really not in this to win a fight ( -- or an election --) but
> rather to help the community reach a consensus by stating a
> (hopeful
I see that Ralph already removed the worst of my excesses, and I fixed
a few others. Are we good?
I'm really not in this to win a fight ( -- or an election --) but
rather to help the community reach a consensus by stating a
(hopefully) clear alternative.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Benson Ma
Chris,
I read your proposal, and I read as lot of other email, and it appears
that the results in my head were a bit of a salad. After re-reading
your proposal, I will make some mods in a moment and remove that
remark in particular.
--benson
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I am +1 to what your proposal does. I am not so fond of the wording of it.
I've tried to make changes to eliminate pointing fingers but just couldn't with
the last section. I would suggest you take another stab at editing it to: a)
make this proposal a general document, not just from you, and
Benson,
I read your proposal.
This statement:
"This leads to my first major qualm about Chris' proposal: everything good,
useful, or necessary about the existing PMC is dumped upon ComDev. There is, in
my mind, some circularity to the argument here. "The incubator is a cesspit, so
we should
Hi Ross,
On Feb 4, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Feb 4, 2012 3:41 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> [...snip...]
>>> Who fixes it?
>>
>> The project's PMC. And if not, the proj
Great thanks! Could you add me to the initial committer list as well?
Colm.
2012/2/3 Francesco Chicchiriccò :
> Hi Colm,
> this sounds great: I've just added your details to Syncope proposal [1]:
> please check if everything is correct.
>
> Regards.
>
> [1]http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Syncop
I've added http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AlternativeIncubatorAnalysis
to the wiki, offering a more or less concrete alternative that is more
evolutionary and less revolutionary. Get out your darts, and feel free
to edit.
-
To u
On 4 February 2012 11:55, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> I've quickly collected a page of things to check before casting your vote for
> a staged release.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/Reviewing+a+Release
>
> This was done from the back of my head, thus I've may
On 2/4/12 1:11 AM, "Scott Wilson" wrote:
>On 3 Feb 2012, at 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> A number of people are asking for the incubator PMC to take a deep
>> breath and allow room to digest and contemplate the various issues
>> that have led to a bumper crop of email. These are complex
On 2/4/12 12:28 AM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
>> could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
>> community has demonstrated viability.
Hi folks!
I've quickly collected a page of things to check before casting your vote for a
staged release.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/Reviewing+a+Release
This was done from the back of my head, thus I've maybe missed some parts. Just
wondered if we don't have such a
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 4, 2012 3:41 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Ross,
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > On 4 February 2012 02:01, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> > wrote:
> > ...
> >
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 4, 2012 5:50 AM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>
> On 2/3/2012 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > Lets not forget that the model referred to *included* the IPMC. The
> > IPMC once had a useful function, it was a safety net for fled
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> A number of people are asking for the incubator PMC to take a deep
> breath and allow room to digest and contemplate the various issues
> that have led to a bumper crop of email. These are complex questions,
> and even if we could avoid in
+1
The NOTICE in the binary distribution has extra notices which I don't
think are necessary, a minimal NOTICE just like the one in the source
distribution is all that is required as far as i can tell, but that
can be fixed in another release.
...ant
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Reto Bachm
39 matches
Mail list logo
