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!
--
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
--
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
wrote:
> On 2/18/2016
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 somethin
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
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 have not expressed?
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 maturity
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 s
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 drivers:
1) Intelligently red
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 engine at
>> the edge
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 definite
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 understand is just a way to
expres
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 co
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 Thursday, February 18, 20
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 Th
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 don't add at all as it
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 about we
require a men
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 that incubating rele
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 request would be OK
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 mandatory LGPL dependencies for Apa
20 matches
Mail list logo