On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote:
...Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is not
done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by mid-April,
which to me sounds optimistic...
The full transition might take some
Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus only
wants to provide a CSV export which is far from being enough for us. I hope
someone at Apache has experience on this and will be able to get in touch
with Codehaus to provide a better migration path.
2015-03-13 18:33
Am 13.03.2015 17:49, schrieb Stian Soiland-Reyes:
[...]
Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is not
done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by mid-April,
which to me sounds optimistic.
well, once we are accepted we will communicate that. There is
(Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
migrate)
On 13 March 2015 at 21:37, Stephen Connolly
2015-03-13 18:36 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com:
Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus only
wants to provide a CSV export which is far from being enough for us. I hope
someone at Apache has experience on this and will be able to get in
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
...it would be strange to release Groovy
2.4.2 as Groovy 2.4.2-incubating. Do we need to talk about this?..
that can be discussed once the podling is established.
-Bertrand
We @ Maven will have a full dump of the Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration...
On 13 March 2015 at 17:36, Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus only
wants to provide a CSV export which is far
Le 13/03/15 12:13, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
community. Forgive me presuming to say this but this seems a
contradiction with The Apache Way as written about. Also it is very
CVCS/Subversion focussed.
In a DVCS world, committers are just the gatekeepers of the central
mainline, the judges/jury
2015-03-13 14:09 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org:
Am 13.03.2015 13:28, schrieb Benson Margulies:
[...]
This has nothing to do with the start of incubation in my view.
+1
I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really the
only discussion point about
+1 Nice. Great anticipation and risk management. Great to see made visible.
-- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
-Original
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote:
Thanks for that nice detailed explanation. Perhaps it should be aded to
here? [1] or [2] While I thought it common knowledge it doesn't seem to be
explicitly written down anywhere in a clear way like that.
Thanks
Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
(Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
migrate)
ah ok, that
Am 13.03.2015 22:37, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
We @ Maven will have a full dump of the Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration...
you mean more than a JSON export lacking comments and attachements?
bye Jochen
--
Jochen blackdrag Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog:
Hi,
Thanks for that nice detailed explanation. Perhaps it should be aded to here?
[1] or [2] While I thought it common knowledge it doesn't seem to be explicitly
written down anywhere in a clear way like that.
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license
2.
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- signatures and hashes correct
- DISCLAIMER exists
- NOTICE and LICENSE correct (minor issue see below) Nice effort with the
LICENSE file btw, it quite complex and everything check outs.
- No unexpected binary files
- Can compile from source
Minor/trivial issues:
-
Don't worry Christian. Same thing for me last month, and someone else the month
before.
Signing the report is not a replacement for actually being involved. Sounds
like you are doing a great job.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Christian
Hi Roman,
you might have noticed, that one of the mentors (me) were actively
asking for this report. I simply forgot to sign it, which does not
happen often to me. In example, the last report was signed (Dec).
More mentors are always welcome; but its not this podling is out on his
own. From
I have been reading this thread via GMane with some worry. I have now
joined the email list and this post is fortuitous in that it allows me
to make some of the points I wish to contribute.
On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 08:55 +0100, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Cédric
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Cédric Champeau
cedric.champ...@gmail.com wrote:
...I see no point in wanting to reach a target number of
committers. Having a large number of quality contributions, more
contributors is IMHO more important than people having write access to the
repo
Once
Le 12/03/15 18:59, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
proposal:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
I've read through the proposal (rev 17). It looks
Apologies for missing the report.
My impression also is that Wave will not, ever, make graduation, and
should seek an alternative home.
There’s still some benefit to the project in being associated with
Apache, but I don’t see how it will ever reach a stronger position. From
the discussions
On 13 March 2015 at 10:50, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
I have been reading this thread via GMane with some worry. I have now
joined the email list and this post is fortuitous in that it allows me
to make some of the points I wish to contribute.
On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 08:55
On 12/03/2015 15:27, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
...Easy: we reach out to all the folks who may have a legitimate claim to
have
contributed to the project in substantial ways and ivite extend an offer to
them
JimJag, for years, has written about the cultural implications of
DVCS, and the email here supports what he's written. So I think we
need to pay close attention.
I think that we care about both PMC and committer inventory. I, for
one, would not want to see an Apache project that restricted commit
Am 13.03.2015 13:28, schrieb Benson Margulies:
[...]
This has nothing to do with the start of incubation in my view.
+1
I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really
the only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen
once we are incubation?
Hi Russel,
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
...I think the language of sustainability and committer status has to
change in this discussion...
I do agree very much with the overall idea that you're expressing, and
I think it matches the spirit of
community. Forgive me presuming to say this but this seems a
contradiction with The Apache Way as written about. Also it is very
CVCS/Subversion focussed.
In a DVCS world, committers are just the gatekeepers of the central
mainline, the judges/jury as to what meets the quality criteria.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really the
only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen once we are
incubation? Shouldn't we focus more on the things that get prevent
On Mar 13, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really the
only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen
+1 (binding)
I guess I saw the thread too late at dev@nifi.a.o, so I directly vote here.
So far I've checked: signatures and digests, source releases file
layouts, matched git tags and commit ids, incubator suffix and
disclaimer, NOTICE and LICENSE files, build sources in a clean
environment
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
...Shouldn't we focus more on the things that get prevent the
project from entering incubation?...
Indeed - the discussions about committers/PMC are useful to the
Incubator at large but not directly related to accepting
Hello
The Apache NiFi PPMC has voted to release Apache NiFi 0.0.2-incubating.
The vote was based on the release candidate described below.
We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
Here is the PPMC voting result:
6 +1 (binding)
0 = 0 (binding)
Two of the +1 votes were from IPMC members.
First of all, this is a great proposal and as a occasional Groovy coder,
Groovy would be a very valuable addition to the Apache family.
My only concern is with the timing of the below:
Groovy 2.4 will
be the last major release under Pivotal Software's sponsorship, which
is scheduled to end on
33 matches
Mail list logo
