On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 5:14 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote:
... is everyone OK if we mark
podlings who don't have mentor sign off as monthly?...
I am ok with that - basically, a report without sign off is like a
missing report.
-Bertrand
The voting period has elapsed and the following votes were received:
+1 (binding):
Chip Childers (carried forward from vote on dev@brooklyn list)
Hadrian Zbarcea
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
+1 (non-binding):
none
-1:
none
With 3 positive binding votes and no negative votes, the release vote passes.
Interesting! but the https://github.com/nudles/singa returns 404. And it
looks like Parameter Server project is core.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org wrote:
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on Incubator Wiki
for change
I was wondering... What we *REALLY* want are projects
that are interested more in The Apache Way than in the
Apache Brand. We need to make it more clear, somehow,
that new projects want to enter the ASF because they
approve of, and want to follow, the *how* of creating
projects and communities.
I was going to ask the same. I've seen ~5 proposals now, and was
surprised to see how they all copied and pasted the same boilerplate
to answer several points, including this stanza about risk of
excessive fascination with the brand.
I also suspect that there is excessive fascination, and that
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Sean Owen sro...@apache.org wrote:
I was going to ask the same. I've seen ~5 proposals now, and was
surprised to see how they all copied and pasted the same boilerplate
to answer several points, including this stanza about risk of
excessive fascination with the
I have always thought that there would be value in reviewing the topics
in our project proposals.
Ideally, we would review them to make sure all questions are open ended,
rather than having a clear expected answer:
Could we replace Inexperience with Open Source (which begs the answer,
No, we
Hello
I am a very new participant in Apache and a member of the ppmc for apache
nifi (incubating).
So I thought it would be good to share that perspective for this
discussion...
In writing the NiFi proposal this section was honestly a bit awkward. The
other sections are largely about providing
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
What we *REALLY* want are projects
that are interested more in The Apache Way than in the
Apache Brand.
What is The Apache Way, anyway?
There's no coherent, authoritative definition -- and therefore,
transgressions are
Agree with Upayavira. And, I think the mentors need to be more
diverse. Sometimes I can predict the result of vote.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
What we *REALLY* want are
Hi,
I have some questions about Binary Convenience Packages:
1) In [1] it says: the binary/bytecode package .. may only add
binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling that version of the
source code release”. An Apache Flex SDK source package has a build
script that downloads jars
Aren't there loads and loads of presos, webinars, slides
etc from various ApacheCons and other FOSS conf's which
detailed the Apache Way?
On Dec 22, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
What we
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before
would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we're still limited
by the following options wrt. resolving mentors AWOL issues:
1. get rid
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before
would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we're still limited
+1, this makes sense to me, Roman. For #3, please feel free to use
my apachestuff code: http://github.com/chrismattmann/apachestuff/
in particular, incubator_mentor_tally, the latest results of which are
here:
https://github.com/chrismattmann/apachestuff/blob/master/incubator-mentors-
tally.txt
I am down with this, but would really rather allow reports that have less
than all of the mentors signing off to be accepted.
Right now, I am involved in mentoring a new podling and at least one other
of the mentors has done literally nothing. No email answers, no help
editing the proposal. No
On 22 Dec 2014, at 11:29, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Aren't there loads and loads of presos, webinars, slides
etc from various ApacheCons and other FOSS conf's which
detailed the Apache Way?
These would be where? And, if we don’t already have a “place” for them
(including
On 22.12.2014 17:42, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Thus, to me, the choice is really about #1 and #3. So perhaps, the
path forward is to try #3 first and then, if things don't improve, go
all the way to #1. Please let me know what do you think.
+1
Sure, we might reduce the number of projects
On 12/20/2014 04:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
...Releases are the tarball(s) prepared by the release manager, not a pointer
into the source control system
Agreed. I also agree with Brane about the pointer into
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Ryan Blue b...@cloudera.com wrote:
Given that there is confusion on this, I think we should decide whether it
is required or not and update the docs to be more clear. Does that require a
vote?
Although many consider it best practice for release tarballs to be
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
1. get rid of IPMC altogether and move to the pTLP model
2. make this a poddling issue: if a poddling fails to hunt down ALL
the mentors for a sign-off -- reject its report
3. patch the current
21 matches
Mail list logo
