On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> This is the third incubator release for Apache Bigtop, version
> 0.3.0-incubating.
>
> It fixes the following issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12317841&projectId=12311420
>
> The delta between RC0
+1
Downloaded, verified checksums and signature.
Built Hadoop and HBase.
All looks good.
Thanks,
--Konst
> From: Roman Shaposhnik
> Date: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM
> Subject: [VOTE] Release for Bigtop version 0.3.0-incubating
> To: bigtop-...@incubator.apache.org, general@incubator.apache.or
On 26 March 2012 17:51, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> For projects who have settled on a permanent
>> name, some things might be better. But this
>> does not make life easier for the project nor
>> infra when our incubator-related infra de
On 26 March 2012 16:20, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe wrote:
Hello Incubator IPMC,
Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubat
Different venue is fine. I was merely observing that we (almost every project)
produces source and binaries distributions from the same pages. Hard to argue
we don't distribute binaries; we do.
Matt Hogstrom
m...@hogstrom.org
A Day Without Nuclear Fusion Is a Day Without Sunshine
On Mar 26, 2
"Policy is that binaries are not endorsed by the ASF. "
I don't think anyone said anything differently.
There is a huge difference between endorsing a third-party binary and
distributing it. But if I misunderstand and it is Apache's policy
that we don't distribute any third-party binaries then w
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> My point is that if push came to shove, legally, I think the -bin objects
> would be considered a distribution.
I disagree. The ASF only releases source.
If I understand correctly, changing that position undermines the
indemnification pro
Sorry. Meant ASF not ASC. My thumbs are too big for my phone.
My point is that if push came to shove, legally, I think the -bin objects would
be considered a distribution.
Matt Hogstrom
On Mar 26, 2012, at 13:36, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE. We don'
Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE. We don't release third party
binaries, period.
Mainifold and other projects package up source AND binaries so I don't think we
can say way don't release binaries. We do. It's more of a convenience. It the
-bin packages emanate from the projects
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> For projects who have settled on a permanent
> name, some things might be better. But this
> does not make life easier for the project nor
> infra when our incubator-related infra depends
> on naming conventions being followed, so this
>
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE. We don't release
> third party binaries, period. Hence, the specific examples that
> you provided are not valid for a release LICENSE. They might be
> valid for the license file included
Roy T. Fielding wrote on Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 18:05:05 +0200:
> Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE. We don't release
> third party binaries, period. Hence, the specific examples that
> you provided are not valid for a release LICENSE. They might be
> valid for the license file included
We distribute binaries with the source distribution as well.
Otherwise it is not possible to build the source. This too is similar
to Lucene and Solr.
I am curious as to when it became a requirement that source and binary
distributions have independent LICENSE and NOTICE files.
Thanks,
Karl
On
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> To your comment on the downside. It is something that mentors need to
> manage to. For projects that are moving like a herd of turtles, they get
> ASF benefits right up front and for those that are lazy like me, there is
> less incentive to
On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
> Some clarifications:
>
> Hi Roy,
>
> (1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all
> non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description
> of the licensing of that jar. We do not attempt to relicense
> anything.
+1 from me on this proposal :)
Cheers,
Chris
On Mar 26, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently new podlings have most of their infrastructure (lists, web
> site, svn, etc.) set up under incubator.apache.org and
> repos/asf/incubator. As a consequence they need to perform an
Some clarifications:
Hi Roy,
(1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all
non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description
of the licensing of that jar. We do not attempt to relicense
anything. No shared release process is involved for any third-party
jar we
For projects who have settled on a permanent
name, some things might be better. But this
does not make life easier for the project nor
infra when our incubator-related infra depends
on naming conventions being followed, so this
decisions isn't purely an IPMC one.
>_
Hi Guys,
+1 from me (binding).
SIGS check out:
[chipotle:~/tmp/flume-110] mattmann% curl -O
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/flume/KEYS
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Spe
+1
To your comment on the downside. It is something that mentors need to manage
to. For projects that are moving like a herd of turtles, they get ASF benefits
right up front and for those that are lazy like me, there is less incentive to
move.
Trying this approach and seeing how it plays ou
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe wrote:
>>> Hello Incubator IPMC,
>>>
>>> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0.
>>> This RC has passed our podling vote and
On 3/24/12 5:28 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
2012/3/13 Jürgen Schmidt:
we have prepared a new developer snapshot on the way to our first release.
Hello again... I have a couple more questions.
sorry for the late response, I haven't noticed it before
It looks like the dev snapshot src tarball
+1 you know you're going in the right direction if it means less process
Regards,
Alan
On Mar 26, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently new podlings have most of their infrastructure (lists, web
> site, svn, etc.) set up under incubator.apache.org and
> repos/asf/incubat
+1
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently new podlings have most of their infrastructure (lists, web
> site, svn, etc.) set up under incubator.apache.org and
> repos/asf/incubator. As a consequence they need to p
+1
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently new podlings have most of their infrastructure (lists, web
> site, svn, etc.) set up under incubator.apache.org and
> repos/asf/incubator. As a consequence they need to perform an extra
> infrastructure migration when t
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Shinichiro Abe
wrote:
> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0.
+1 to release (checked the -src.tar.gz package with SHA1 checksum
a55cebf7d725f2363ccf40e4f0129b95110fa36d)
As for the issues raised by Sebb:
* NOTICE; Let's fi
Withdrawing the release candidate from consideration in order to
address sebb's blocking license/notice issues.
Karl
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe wrote:
>> Hello Incubator IPMC,
>>
>> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0
A big +1 from me. It's a royal pain in the rear to move so much stuff
around just because of graduation.
Karl
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently new podlings have most of their infrastructure (lists, web
> site, svn, etc.) set up under incubator.apache.or
Thanks for the review.
Build with maven requires running "mvn-bootstrap" script first.
Primary build is ant. This is described in the documentation.
License notices have been released 4 previous times in this form and
were based originally on Solr/Lucene, which included many of the same
dependen
Some comments:
The NOTICEs file does not indicate that there is software from outside the
ASF... for instance, Jetty is a Codehaus project. Same license, different
org. Here is what Geronimo does:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/tags/2.1.4/NOTICE.txt
The code signing Key i
How's this for a diff to address the LICENSE.txt problem:
Index: LICENSE.txt
===
--- LICENSE.txt (revision 1304322)
+++ LICENSE.txt (working copy)
@@ -230,15 +230,19 @@
This product includes a jaxb-impl.jar.
License: Dual license c
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe wrote:
> Hello Incubator IPMC,
>
> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0.
> This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection.
> You can find the artifact at
> http://people.apache.org/~shinichiro/apache-manifold
On 03/20/2012 11:35 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> This is the third incubator release for Apache Bigtop, version
> 0.3.0-incubating.
>
> It fixes the following issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12317841&projectId=12311420
>
> The delta between RC0 and
On 03/20/2012 09:13 PM, Ron Bogdanoff wrote:
> I tried building/testing RC1 today. Question, I am probably doing
> something wrong here, not sure...
>
> Build was ok, can run PI test.
>
> I am trying to run the smoke tests in bigtop-tests/test-artifacts. I
> needed to add a to the pom for
> ht
+1 from me (binding).
Karl
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Shinichiro Abe
wrote:
> Hello Incubator IPMC,
>
> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0.
> This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection.
> You can find the artifact at
> http://people.a
35 matches
Mail list logo
