[ANNOUNCE] Apache Apex Malhar Release 3.2.0-incubating released

The Apache Apex community is pleased to announce release 3.2.0-incubating of the Malhar Library. Changes: https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-malhar/blob/v3.2.0-incubating/CHANGELOG.md Apache Apex is an enterprise grade native YARN big data-in-motion platform that unifies stream processing

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Some projects use the git Signed-off-by field in the commit log to differentiate the author from the reviewer. --Chris Nauroth On 11/19/15, 10:58 AM, "Ralph Goers" wrote: >And there is another problem I have. Maybe it isn¹t true of all projects, >but the one I am

Spark-Kernel naming & mentors

There seems to be a consensus here that the Spark-Kernel name should change, and so I think the Spark-Kernel team can generate a new name that does not contain "Spark" or "Kernel". This will ensure it is not perceived as necessarily being a core part of Spark or as having a primary association

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

Hi, On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > FYI I have started an experiment at > https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/blob/master/MATURITY.adoc , > using our maturity model to evaluate Groovy... Groovy graduated now and doesn't have a good

Re: [DISCUSS] S2Graph Incubator Proposal

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Hyunsik Choi wrote: > Thank you very much Stack! It definitely looks better than just wiki. > It would be helpful to improve the proposal. > > To be clear, proposal needs to be on the wiki. I just moved it over so I could show my edits as

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

And there is another problem I have. Maybe it isn’t true of all projects, but the one I am involved with says the author can’t commit his own code. So the commit logs will not reflect who actually authored the code but who reviewed it. I could probably tolerate RTC if I had to have the commit

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Myriad 0.1.0 (incubating)

Thanks Justin and John for trying out the RC and providing feedback. We'll prepare a new RC with the changes you suggested, call for a PPMC vote and submit the RC for IPMC voting. Regards, Santosh On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:00 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Could you include

Re: Project Website Template

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > >> +1 >> >> I had the same thought when I built Calcite’s site based on jekyll >> (actually cloned from Orc’s site). Thanks for making this

Re: Project Website Template

> On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > > The strawman of the template is available in the newly created git > repository > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/apache-website-template.git And mirrored at

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Trick question, as I'd never work under that model :-) Apache Subversion is CTR, with a very low bar to get commit access to portions of the tree or a branch (only PMC members get access to whole tree, so we grant full access and PMC membership simultaneously). We don't need a fancy label for

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

Hi, > 1. HP donated the Trafodion code to Apache several months ago. We have gone > through all the legal steps to get the code donated. As part of this > process we removed all the HP copyrights except for our test files and > documentation. Do we have to remove all the Copyrights in order to

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Greg, which of these do you use when the “contributor” is a committer? Remember the model here is that the author is never allowed to commit their own code. Ralph > On Nov 19, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > The Apache Subversion project does something similar: > >

Re: Kalumet retirement steps

I think the rest of the contributions come from Olivier Lamy another ASFer. +1 to your your proposal for a resolution. Cheers, Hadrian On 11/19/2015 04:21 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: Thanks for speaking up, folks. Based on the information in this thread, I plan to resolve the copyright issue

Re: Spark-Kernel naming & mentors

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:59 AM, David Fallside wrote: > There seems to be a consensus here that the Spark-Kernel name should > change, and > so I think the Spark-Kernel team can generate a new name that does not > contain > "Spark" or "Kernel". This will ensure it is not

Re: Kalumet retirement steps

Thanks for speaking up, folks. Based on the information in this thread, I plan to resolve the copyright issue on Kalumet's podling status page with a resolution date of today. Technically, I have only received reassurances that the codebase is "almost exclusively" work that originates with one

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

The Apache Subversion project does something similar: http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/conventions.html#crediting We have a tool ("contribulyzer") that analyzes them. It's pretty neat. On Nov 19, 2015 1:57 PM, "Chris Nauroth" wrote: > Some projects

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

Thanks Justin for your comprehensive review of the release artifacts and valuable comments. And thanks Steve for your comment that indicates the importance of getting provenance correct. We are committed to getting the release package correct along with all the provenance issues. This is the

Re: [VOTE] Retire Corinthia

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > [ ] +1 to retire Corinthia from the Incubator > [ ] -1 to keep Corinthia in the Incubator The VOTE passes with +1 votes from the following IPMC members: Roman Shaposhnik Ted Dunning Greg Stein Henry

Re: [DISCUSS] S2Graph Incubator Proposal

Thank you Stack for your kind work. I just understood. I will improve the proposal from your suggestion. Best regards, Hyunsik On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Stack wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Hyunsik Choi wrote: > >> Thank you very much

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >... > of people wanting to join. I am sure this is going to be a controversial > statement, but I have noticed that the projects that I’ve seen do this > often have a fair number of committers who are paid to work

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Yes, it was a trick question. But it proves my point. I can’t imagine a world where someone would refuse to participate in a project because it was CTR, but in my view this variation of RTC definitely limits the number of people wanting to join. I am sure this is going to be a controversial

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Todd: as Ross notes, your three points about code reviews in a CTR project are quite valid, and match accepted engineering practices. What I haven't seen is an explanation why a committer must be treated the same as a drive-by. Both are subject to requiring "permission"[1] to make even the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

Hi, > As for #4 - the pictures were taken by someone in our organization. I will > tell him that they look professional -:) They are not licensed or anything, > just personal photos. If they are fine with them being distributed then that's all good IMO. You may want to add something in

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

On 11/19/15, 7:56 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >Thanks for the clarification. > >> The ASF politely requests that contributors remove copyright notices >>from >> individual files. There are a variety of reasons for this request[2]. > >I assume you mean their own

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

Hi, Thanks for the clarification. > The ASF politely requests that contributors remove copyright notices from > individual files. There are a variety of reasons for this request[2]. I assume you mean their own copyright notices you can’t remove other peoples right? Any advice in what to do

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

None of your statements below are any different between RTC or CTR. The only time it makes aa difference is if no one does reviews. My feeling is that a community that insists on RTC believes that code will not be reviewed unless committers are forced to do it. All I can say, is that for me

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

Thanks for your quick answers. As for #4 - the pictures were taken by someone in our organization. I will tell him that they look professional -:) They are not licensed or anything, just personal photos Since you seem to knowledgeable on License issues. You mentioned that #11 references Open

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

On 11/19/15, 7:42 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> As for #4 - the pictures were taken by someone in our organization. I >>will >> tell him that they look professional -:) They are not licensed or >>anything, just personal photos. > >If they are fine with them

Re: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

On 11/18/2015 06:28 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > PS Alas, "scores" are chalked against the manager of communities who > fails to satisfy the beany needs of misguided marketing. (Beany > needs=bean counter needs.) We should have a support group. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen

Re: Kalumet retirement steps

Hi Hadrian and Marvin, I replied on the kalumet mailing list. It's not a problem at all that the Kalumet's code remain on svn. Sorry for the delay guys. Regards JB On 11/19/2015 05:44 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: Hi Marvin, As far as I remember, Kalumet is almost exclusively the work of JB

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) 1.3.0-incubating (RC4)

> On 19 Nov 2015, at 02:28, Justin Mclean wrote: > > 10], copyright Open Software Foundation e.g. [11] That taints so much of the HP C++ codebase. Someone I know was working on the unix JVM and was in the graphics code, where he came across bits of the font stuff

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > None of your statements below are any different between RTC or CTR. The > only time it makes aa difference is if no one does reviews. My feeling is > that a community that insists on RTC believes that code will

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation

Having been through this twice now with "Pivotal GemFire" begatting "Apache Geode" and "Pivotal HAWQ" becoming "Apache HAWQ" If the current owner intends to allow infringement on the MIRACL brand as a policy by any user of Apache Miracl, then that should be ok. In effect they will be putting

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > > > None of your statements below are any different between RTC or CTR. The > > only time it makes aa difference is if no one does

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Sorry for extending the thread, but now I'm curious... On 11/19/15, 9:10 AM, "Todd Lipcon" wrote: >I'm sure it works fine for many communities (I use CTR on some internal >infrastructure within small teams where bugs are less costly and the rate >of development is slow). But

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Todd asks "How do you know if someone else has already read the commit" - I don't care. Just as people writing code can make mistakes, so can people who review code. For this reason if *I* care about *that* commit I will review it in detail - regardless of RTC or CTR. The more people who