En los foros algunos voluntarios están reportando errores de
traducción. Ya están casi todos corregidos salvo el siguiente:
http://user.services.openoffice.org/es/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25682#p25682
Citando al amigo Salva
«Al agrupar una tabla dinámica con un campo de columnas de tipo fecha
por
Hola a todos,
Interesantes las estadísticas de las descargas de Apache OpenOffice 3.4
(que casi llegan a los 2 millones) http://s.apache.org/8bU
Cantidades de descargas en español:
Spain,66036
Mexico,18529
Argentina,15254
Colombia,7893
Chile,7667
Venezuela,4093
Peru,3341
Uruguay,2910
So, what message here should the incubator send a podling, or the
foundation send a TLP? I really don't mean this as a rhetorical
question at all, I'm honestly puzzled. In the case of Lucene, I've
been hanging out for months, and I feel perfectly confident that it's
a healthy community by any
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote:
At this point my recommendations are:
1. Since the PPMC voted to separate being a committer and being a PMC
member I would wait a couple of months and then add the new non-Cloudera
committers to the PPMC if it is
On 23 May 2012 19:45, Josh Wills jwi...@cloudera.com wrote:
I would like to call a vote for accepting Apache Crunch for
incubation in the Apache Incubator. The full proposal is available
below. We ask the Incubator PMC to sponsor it, with phunt as
Champion, and phunt, tomwhite, and acmurthy
On 25 May 2012 20:00, Josh Wills jwi...@cloudera.com wrote:
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Replies inlined below.
1. He's using it at work, so represents the end users.
A super-majority of the initial committers are also end users. I use
Crunch on my own projects
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Steve Loughran
steve.lough...@gmail.com wrote:
It is becoming a bit of a SPOF, isn't it?
What has changed about our JIRA instance is both its size and its increasing
integration into the workflows of some projects. It always was a SPOF, but
now we are feeling
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
So, what message here should the incubator send a podling, or the
foundation send a TLP? I really don't mean this as a rhetorical
question at all, I'm honestly puzzled.
There are a couple of technical mitigations
Marvin,
I am at your disposal to collaborate on something here; note my reply
at infrastructure@. It seems to me that this thread would largely go
better over there, now that the caveat that 'a podling run entirely on
JIRA may have community problems' has been delivered.
--benson
Hi,
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Steve Loughran
steve.lough...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go for pulling Jakob in for tactical and strategic reasons
We grant committership based on merit, not tactics or strategy. Sounds
to me like Josh and the rest of the team would be quite willing to add
Jakob
I'll see Jukka one and raise him one. I have advised potential
podlings to be very conservative with their initial list, and keep
some potential contributors in their collective back pocket. This
gives them a ready-made source of community growth, which is typically
the scarcest and most precious
+1
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I've never fully understood the practice of allowing just
about anyone to sign up as an initial committer of a podling. Putting
your name on a list does not make you a part of a
This isn't about whether or not they will respond appropriately to new
contributors once they are incubator project. And it's absolutely not
whether or not I should be an initial committer (the vote's going on
already and I'm happy it is).
Since the team has already stumbled in its first steps,
+1.
Josh and his cohorts have gotten a quick, unexpected introduction to
the value of building a diverse community. But the code's solid and
the lessons learned. Looking forward to this one.
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Loughran
steve.lough...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May 2012 19:45,
Inlined.
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't about whether or not they will respond appropriately to new
contributors once they are incubator project. And it's absolutely not
whether or not I should be an initial committer (the vote's going on
Hi,
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.org wrote:
* We have established that there is sufficient diversity in the committers
list.
I tend to look more at actual commit activity than the committers list
when evaluating the diversity of a project. There are people on
On May 26, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Ralph Goers
ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote:
At this point my recommendations are:
1. Since the PPMC voted to separate being a committer and being a PMC
member I would wait a couple of months and then
The vote passes with twelve +1s from Incubator PMC members:
Arun Murthy
Alan Cabrera
Benson Margulies
Bertrand Delacretaz
Doug Cutting
Luciano Resende
Jukka Zitting
Matthew Franklin
Niall Pemberton
Patrick Hunt
Tom White
Tommaso Teofili
seven non-binding +1s, and one 0- from Incubator PMC member
Hi Jukka,
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.org
wrote:
* We have established that there is sufficient diversity in the
committers
list.
I tend to look more at actual commit
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll see Jukka one and raise him one. I have advised potential
podlings to be very conservative with their initial list, and keep
some potential contributors in their collective back pocket. This
gives them a
20 matches
Mail list logo
