Hello
May I get edit access to incubator wiki to fill out the March report
for Zeppelin project.
My id is anthonycorbacho
Thank you.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:05 AM, jonathon wrote:
> On 31/03/15 03:08, David Nalley wrote:
>>> the master ASFxxx account be associated with. I see
>>> two alternatives here:
>>> * ASF Infra team collectively owns it
>>> * Whoever controls @TheASF owns it
>> Neither IMO.
>> Infra doesn't wa
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> ?
> My apologies for not looking up how to actually use Ignite :)
>
>
> The build still requires the edtFTPj dependency to compile, even
> without -Plgpl - using urideploy through Maven would always pull in
> the edtFTPj dependency.
>
?
My apologies for not looking up how to actually use Ignite :)
The build still requires the edtFTPj dependency to compile, even
without -Plgpl - using urideploy through Maven would always pull in
the edtFTPj dependency.
It is also in the zip:
inflating:
ignite-fabric-1.0.0/libs/optional/ign
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 09:03PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 31.03.2015 17:46, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> >>> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
> >>> have mul
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:55PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
> > Not sure what are the licenses of the libs in question, so please refer to
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html if in doubt.
>
> * zlib1 -- Zlib license
> * lib
On 31.03.2015 17:46, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
>>> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
>>> C
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> That thread does not mention edtFTPj or the test dependencies.
>
> http://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/
>
>
> but if edtFTPj is optional, why is it then not marked as such in the
> modules/urideploy/pom.xml?
>
> If I comment out e
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
>> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
>> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking u
That thread does not mention edtFTPj or the test dependencies.
http://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/
but if edtFTPj is optional, why is it then not marked as such in the
modules/urideploy/pom.xml?
If I comment out edtFTPj, then I get lots of compiler errors.
modules/urideploy is depended
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> wrote:
> > -0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
>
> I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed during
> the last release:
>
> http://s.apache.org/vfN
>
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> -0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed during
the last release:
http://s.apache.org/vfN
As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL
-0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
(As much as I would prefer LGPL dependencies to be allowed, they are not:
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html )
They are not technically *included* - so legally I think it is
passable for this release, as long as you only distribute this source
re
On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over.
> (this might have been pointed out earlier
Agree that release.html needs some polishing, and that there are no
hard rules on the versions (even "don't re-release the same version"
is not written down in letters).
Obviously it would still be confusing to vote over say RC2 of
1.0.0-RC3 and best avoided if possible. This vote is luckily ove
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> sorry, my send button was trigger happy..
>
> +0 - due to build errors (see below)
>
> Verified:
>
> 1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS
> 2) MD5/SHA1 signatures
> 3) No binaries (except PNGs, test SSL certificates, PDF)
> 4)
sorry, my send button was trigger happy..
+0 - due to build errors (see below)
Verified:
1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS
2) MD5/SHA1 signatures
3) No binaries (except PNGs, test SSL certificates, PDF)
4) DISCLAIMER, LICENSE and NOTICE
5) rat plugin happy (mvn clean validate -Pcheck-
You did not include the hashes, so I will assume:
stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0$
cat *md5 *sha1
401e8407bb262aacb1600bb188f9 incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
a8f643ffdc5b45101cf5a9ad5f19b9fce5a4099f incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
I would hav
Dear podling,
This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator
PMC.
It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly
board report.
The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 15 April 2015, 10:30 am PST. The report
for your podling will fo
On 31/03/15 03:08, David Nalley wrote:
>> the master ASFxxx account be associated with. I see
>> two alternatives here:
>> * ASF Infra team collectively owns it
>> * Whoever controls @TheASF owns it
> Neither IMO.
> Infra doesn't want it ...
> And burdening Sally, Jim, Joe, etc with scores
20 matches
Mail list logo
