FYI - Helix community is taking a vote on graduating Helix to TLP
-- Forwarded message --
From: kishore g
Date: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:06 PM
Subject: [VOTE] Graduate Helix from Apache Incubator to TLP
To: dev
Hi,
As the discussion about Graduation have settled down, I am calli
Lahiru Sandaruwan wrote:
> >
> > Release Apache Stratos 3.0.0 Incubating RC4
>
> Will send the result correctly again.
>
> Thanks.
Cleared now.
> > They added (passed) at the end of Subject.
FIXME: perhaps voter/voter.py needs additional code to handle such
-David
--
On 11/14/13 9:07 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> I still think that having a "Release Auditor" role provides backup for
>> getting incubator releases out without having folks have to be on the
>>IPMC
>> to approve the legal aspects of a rele
This is a call for vote to graduate Ambari from Apache Incubator.
The Apache Ambari project has been incubating since August 2011.
We have made significant progress with the project during the two years
of Incubation, adding 27 committers for a total of 36 committers [1], and
producing 8 releases
Thank you for reviewing, David.
Since there have not been any objection for the resolution draft, we
will start an IPMC recommendation vote thread for graduation.
Yusaku
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:38 PM, David Crossley wrote:
> I compared the text of your resolution to that of the template.
> Al
IIRC, JSPWiki had exactly the same issue when it entered the incubator.
There were a non-Apache release or two while it was incubating, using the
non-Apache package names, hosted on non-Apache servers and announced on
non-Apache mail lists.
Since it wasn't an Apache release, it was not announc
Agreed. It will not be hosted or linked to from any Apache site.
On another thread on the storm dev list, I have an open question as to whether
or not it’s okay to announce it (with a disclaimer that it is not an Apache
release) on the Apache mailing lists dev/u...@storm.incubator.apache.org, or
On 9 November 2013 12:17, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Is there such a concept as "Lazy Majority" ?
> Yes many Apache projects define it (eg Ant, Kafka, Hadoop, Pig, Hive and
> others ) as does Apache HTTP. [1]
> "Lazy majority decides each issue in the release plan."
The phrase is used, but
Also, if it's not an Apache release, it probaly should not be hosted and
listed at Apache to avoid confusion.
On Thursday, November 14, 2013, Ted Dunning wrote:
> First few words should read "A disclaimer ..."
>
> I blame a combo of jet lag and *really* slow net link. Not the guy who hit
> send
On 10 November 2013 08:00, Alex Harui wrote:
> IMO, there are two problems:
>
> 1) We're trying to train folks to manage IP for their community but they
> have to seek approval from folks are aren't as vested in their community.
> My analogy is telling a new city council member: "Welcome to the ci
Hi All,
72 hours and more have passed now and the current vote thread is considered
concluded and passes with the following resolution:
Six +1 binding votes from the following IPMCs:
* Suresh maru
* Ant Elder
* Chip Childers
* Afkam Azeez
* Deepal Jayasingha
* Chris Mattmann
Eight +1 bind
Hi David,
Sorry for being late to act.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:40 AM, David Crossley wrote:
> Thanks to those who did follow-up. That clears a bit.
>
> Another plea from me to help you to clear the clutter:
>
> I reviewed the mail archives for the outstanding ones
> to see why the "Vote Moni
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:08 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> What i'd like to try is more similar to the pTLP approach previously
>> talked about. So take some existing podling, eg Stratos and/or
>> VXQuery, and give the PPMC binding votes. They h
13 matches
Mail list logo
