Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

On 2/19/2016 4:25 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: Thanks for all the replies. This definitely looks interesting, particularly how a Quarks application is modeled as a streaming topology. I would also like to be part of this project and contribute to it. Thank you Bhupesh and welcome!

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

On 2/19/2016 3:49 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: You add add me if you want, I’ve a little busy right now so may no be so active initially. Thank you Justin for volunteering. It will be great to have a mentor with your experience on the project. Best Kathey

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

Thanks for all the replies. This definitely looks interesting, particularly how a Quarks application is modeled as a streaming topology. I would also like to be part of this project and contribute to it. Thanks. -Bhupesh On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Katherine Marsden

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

On 2/19/2016 3:36 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: Just FYI, we don't need to wait for you and Dan to be officially part of IPMC, vote can be started sooner (we had similar issue with couple mentors on SystemML) Thank you Luciano. That's good news! I will call the vote Wednesday then, unless

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

Hi, >> Is anyone else willing to be a mentor? We have three volunteers, but >> would appreciate more. You add add me if you want, I’ve a little busy right now so may no be so active initially. I’m one f the mentors on several other incubating projects (including IoT projects) and a couple of

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Katherine Marsden wrote: > I really appreciate the input so far on this proposal. I was wondering... > > Is anyone else willing to be a mentor? We have three volunteers, but > would appreciate more. > Does anyone have any concerns that they

[DISCUSS] Graduate Sentry from the Apache Incubator

Hi all, The Sentry community has discussed[1] and voted upon[2] graduation as a TLP. Now we would like to get feedback from the incubator before we can start a formal vote on general@. I have put down a summary of the community and the project below. And we have also filled out the Sentry

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

I really appreciate the input so far on this proposal. I was wondering... Is anyone else willing to be a mentor? We have three volunteers, but would appreciate more. Does anyone have any concerns that they have not expressed? If not, I would like to call a vote Wednesday, February 24 or as

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:19 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: I am just trying to understand the need for streaming analytics engine at the edge devices. An example use case justifying the need for such systems would definitely help. There are at least a couple of

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote: > On 2/18/2016 10:19 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Seems to be a nice idea for offloading processing from the centralized >> systems. >> I am just trying to understand the need for streaming analytics

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

On 2/18/2016 10:19 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: Hi All, Seems to be a nice idea for offloading processing from the centralized systems. I am just trying to understand the need for streaming analytics engine at the edge devices. An example use case justifying the need for such systems would

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Henry Saputra wrote: > Officially it means nothing =P > > Exactly, this is what worried my a little bit. > But it is nice way to express interest and support to the proposal. > > Agree, so it's ok to leave there, as long as we

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

Officially it means nothing =P But it is nice way to express interest and support to the proposal. - Henry On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Seetharam Venkatesh < venkat...@innerzeal.com> wrote: > Apache Beam (incubating) did just this and there were a lot of 'em who > signed up as interested

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

Apache Beam (incubating) did just this and there were a lot of 'em who signed up as interested contributors. Its not clear as to what it means though. Thanks! On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:09 AM Katherine Marsden wrote: > On 2/18/2016 8:57 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > > On

RE: License statement third party modified code

Thanks, I will take the question to legal-discuss list. --Steve > -Original Message- > From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 6:36 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: License statement third party modified code > > On

Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal

On 2/18/2016 8:57 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: On Thursday, February 18, 2016, Katherine Marsden wrote: I created an Additional Interested Contributors section What is the intent of the new section ? I would say, either add possible contributors as initial committers or

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

On 2/19/16 6:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Greg Stein wrote: ...Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a disclaimer in the release notes Except we don't have a standard for release notes, so how

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > ...Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a > disclaimer in the release notes Except we don't have a standard for release notes, so how about we require a mention in the DISCLAIMER file

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time > exception is warranted. Cool, except that I will note that Toree is in the same situation, and is preparing a release. I would hope that that

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time exception is warranted. > On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Craig Russell wrote: > > I agree that an incubating release does not need to be fully compliant with > the proscription against