Hi,
I'll prepare a new release with all test resources with unclear
licensing removed and the tests that require them deactivated for now.
That could be an easy short term solution, but I wouldn't remove the tests just
yet as it may be that they could be downloaded not bundled and/or hosted
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
There is no mention of such an item under known risks or the
crypotography section of the proposal
so what's this export stuff about (assuming the license thing is the
evaluation license)?
Sorry for not being
Where hand over the Geode name also means hand over the domain name and
GitHub organizations that have rather confusingly been launched in the last few
days.
I'd also like to be able to review the source referred to in the proposal
without having to sign up to the Pivotal network - how can I
Pivotal are asking me to agree to an evaluation license which I cannot view
before I sign up. So I have to review the privacy policy first.
Pivotal's privacy policy goes a *long* way beyond the point I am comfortable
with when getting open source software (or deciding whether I want to agree
Ross,
do we evaluate source code at the incubation-entry level, or do we evaluate
proposed development goals and development community propositions? I'm
curious about your thoughts.
Yours,
Bill
On Apr 13, 2015 12:16 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Pivotal
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:50 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote:
Roman,
Is this the same as Project Geode which seems to be clogging my twitter
feed this afternoon?
Sorry about that -- we get excited about open source ;-)
http://projectgeode.org/
If so, it looks like you
Since I'm getting a few off-list questions, I just want to make one point
clear:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
I'd also like to be able to review the source referred to in the proposal
without having to sign up to the Pivotal network - how can I
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Pivotal are asking me to agree to an evaluation license which I cannot view
before I sign up.
So I have to review the privacy policy first.
This must be a bug in your browser. What OS/Browser are
Hi all,
The Calcite community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
Apache Calcite 1.2.0-incubating.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this release. This is a short release,
less than a month after 1.1, but there are 42 fixed issues nevertheless. In
particular, Avatica has
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Where hand over the Geode name also means hand over the domain name and
GitHub organizations
that have rather confusingly been launched in the last few days.
Yup. Everything that's been published on
I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in. In
particular, a glance to see whether there is any hygiene around licensing
is an important question. Many projects in the world at large have no good
record of who write the code but still imagine that they can change the
licensing.
Steve Blackmon
sblack...@apache.org
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Steve Blackmon sblack...@apache.org wrote:
Justin,
The short answer is the project has not asked for permission from any
data providers to include data sourced from their APIs as test data.
I'm not expecting a rush to add
Justin,
The short answer is the project has not asked for permission from any
data providers to include data sourced from their APIs as test data.
I'm not expecting a rush to add +1s to a vote after legal has been
mentioned in the thread, so I'll cancel it.
I'll prepare a new release with all
Hi everyone,
I propose the following RC to be released as official Apache Parquet
1.6.0 release. This RC passed the vote in the Parquet community with 2
binding IPMC votes. The thread is here:
* http://s.apache.org/parquet-1.6.0-ppmc-vote
This is the first Apache release of Parquet MR. Like
Hi,
It passes all the basic checks for a release, but sorry it's -1 (binding) from
me until the likely copyright issues around the test data are sorted out.
I checked:
- release has incubating in the name
- signature and hashes fine
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE fine for the code but
Just as a quick remark. Geode might be a trademark owned by AMD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geode_%28processor%29
Cheers
Daniel
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
Hi!
I would like to open up a discussion thread on
the proposals for the core of
Roman,
Could you comment on the potential issue that this proposal is only
offering up the distributed object storage. The problem that might arise
with this is that by offering up a particular specialized core capability,
other projects may find it difficult to use this core capability which
Hi!
I would like to open up a discussion thread on
the proposals for the core of Pivotal's GemFire
to join ASF as an incubating project under the
name Geode.
The proposal wiki is available here:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GeodeProposal
and the text of the proposal is attached to the
On Sunday, April 12, 2015, dsh daniel.hais...@gmail.com wrote:
Just as a quick remark. Geode might be a trademark owned by AMD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geode_%28processor%29
Good catch, we need to hear the opinion of trademark@ because it depend on
it is in an overlapping field (as I
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
Roman,
Could you comment on the potential issue that this proposal is only
offering up the distributed object storage. The problem that might arise
with this is that by offering up a particular specialized core
Roman,
Is this the same as Project Geode which seems to be clogging my twitter
feed this afternoon?
http://projectgeode.org/
If so, it looks like you already figured out the naming issue. Is whoever
behind this going to hand over the geode name to ASF?
John
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:47 PM
21 matches
Mail list logo
