On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Joachim Dreimann <
joachim.dreim...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to request the beginning of the vote for the third release of
> Apache Bloodhound in the incubator following the successful vote by the
> Bloodhound PPMC.
>
> The result of the vote is
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> It's quite frustrating that people find time to write hundreds of mails
> about points of procedure, but can't take time to review a release
> tarball from a podling.
>
> Activity on Bloodhound is picking up, and the project wants to release
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Releases and new committers are pretty much the only time I'd expect to see
> votes in an Apache community.
Understood. My question was specifically about the
process used by ASF to manage its "top level" web
pages. Now I know.
Thanks,
Roma
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Henk P. Penning wrote:
> I am +1 on suggesting (on that page) a 'normal' form for
> the content of a .md5 file.
I'll take a crack at it now that I know where the source is ;-)
> I am definitedly -1 on removing the gpg line above, or
> suggesting that only
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ||| Hi all,
> |||
> ||| I would like to start the vote for the first release of Celix!
> ||| The last few months we have been working on this release.
> ||| Most of the time went into cleaning up sources, getting the required
> ||| files i
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 07:25:54 +0200:
> Jake Farrell wrote on Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 22:02:16 -0500:
> > That page is part of the Apache CMS and ASF members can edit that page
> > by using the following http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#usage. Non ASF
> > members can create
Jake Farrell wrote on Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 22:02:16 -0500:
> That page is part of the Apache CMS and ASF members can edit that page
> by using the following http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#usage. Non ASF
> members can create a ticket within jira under the infra project and
> attach a patch
It's quite frustrating that people find time to write hundreds of mails
about points of procedure, but can't take time to review a release
tarball from a podling.
Activity on Bloodhound is picking up, and the project wants to release
every couple weeks; yet the 0.2 vote thread sat in general@ for
+1 on active PMC duties would be fine to ensure continuation of the project.
regards,
Eric
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 30 November 2012 00:52, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> > Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters of the recent 'small
> > graduates' was that t
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>...I'd say you need at least five
>>> active PMC members at graduation time...
>
>> ...Maybe that could be a requireme
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>...I'd say you need at least five
>> active PMC members at graduation time...
> ...Maybe that could be a requirement, if the mentors think that the podling
> is not diverse and
> vib
On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>> Hence my idea to do away with the rule of thumb and stick to at least one
>> responsible PMC member
>
> How will that work? IIUC your idea, the resulting PMC cannot get 3 PMC
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 30 November 2012 00:52, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> > Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters of the recent 'small
> > graduates' was that they had around 5 initial PMC members, and some
> > detectable evidence that all of them were
Henk P. Penning wrote on Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:08:33 +0100:
> The reason given "I ended up writing a Perl script" doesn't
> make sense ; .md5 files come in many forms but the algorithm
> to verify is the same for all of them (there are no 'variations.') :
>
> verify (checksum md5, .md5-
On 30 November 2012 00:52, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters of the recent 'small
> graduates' was that they had around 5 initial PMC members, and some
> detectable evidence that all of them were in the reasonably regular
> habit of contributing code, let alo
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> Hence my idea to do away with the rule of thumb and stick to at least one
> responsible PMC member
How will that work? IIUC your idea, the resulting PMC cannot get 3 PMC
votes so it cannot operate.
I don't want to burden the board with
+1 non-binding
Andy Seaborne:
> Hi there,
>
> Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
> proposal:
>
> Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept Marmotta into the Apache Incubator
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to the accep
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> ...Some caveats not documented there are:
>
> - The PMC chair is still responsible for using modify_unix_group...
I've fixed the "not documented" bit by adding that info to
http://www.apache.org/dev/infra-contact#requesting-graduation - hope
18 matches
Mail list logo
