Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, >> if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something >> like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that Perhaps ask yourself why that is? Is it because the licensing/copyright/provenance is unclear? Does the files version control history tell you anything? I know

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark > the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look weir > enough. Would’t be better to fix/add the headers? That way the licensing of any file would be clear and anyone editing those feel in

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi Justin! sorry for a belated reply -- I was on a glorious 2.5 vacation with a total disconnect from my email/etc (I have to admit I did Tweet a bit, but only when it came to non-software related things like politics or beer). And speaking of beer -- we really owe you a big one. I hope you're

Re: [VOTE] Apache Fluo parent POM 1 and Build Resources 1.0.0

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:47 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > +1 binding > > I checked: > - incubating in release name > - DISCLAIMER exists > - LICENSE and NOTICE fine > - No binaries in the release > - can compile from source > > Only one small niggle is that

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Fluo Branding

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:00 PM John D. Ament wrote: > Christopher, > > I wanted to start a separate thread regarding some of your branding > comments below, to make sure we're all on the same page. > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM Christopher wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

+1 Release looks fine. On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM Kam Kasravi wrote: > Hi IPMC Community > > The PPMC vote to release Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 has passed > successfully. > > We would like to now submit this release candidate to the IPMC. > > The PPMC

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

IPMC Community We're short one vote required in order to release gearpump 0.8.1. This is our first release so please vote! Thanks Kam On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote: > Hi IPMC Community > > If you have some time, this is a friendly reminder to vote for

[DISCUSS] Apache Fluo Branding

Christopher, I wanted to start a separate thread regarding some of your branding comments below, to make sure we're all on the same page. On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM Christopher wrote: > IPMC, > > Please consider the following candidates for Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating

Re: [VOTE] Apache Fluo parent POM 1 and Build Resources 1.0.0

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in release name - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE fine - No binaries in the release - can compile from source Only one small niggle is that "build-resources-1.0.0-incubating” (one of the two artefacts in the release) seems an unusual name for an

Re: Question regarding incubator status page

I also got confused by this part of the podling status page. Perhaps we can fix this by changing the wording: >> > members> >> If the project website and code repository are not yet set up, use the >> following table: I’m not sure about the utility of verifying the current state of the podling.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Fluo parent POM 1 and Build Resources 1.0.0

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:29 PM John D. Ament wrote: > +1 release contents look good. Thank you for your due diligence on this > release. > > I'll reply separately about the other comments, to not throw off this > thread. > > Nitpick: Check your signature, may not be

Re: [VOTE] Apache Fluo parent POM 1 and Build Resources 1.0.0

+1 release contents look good. Thank you for your due diligence on this release. I'll reply separately about the other comments, to not throw off this thread. Nitpick: Check your signature, may not be valid: gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

An internal/asf EE umbrella rather. BatchEE got more exposure than most G shared projects so not super motivating from my point of view. What is the real issue staying self contained? Why should a project get 500 commits and 500 mails a month once stable - or what is the evaluation there? Le 8

[VOTE] Apache Fluo parent POM 1 and Build Resources 1.0.0

IPMC, Please consider the following candidates for Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating and Fluo Build Resources 1.0.0-incubating. There are two artifacts, which we are releasing together. They do not contain Fluo itself, but are prerequisites for the Maven build of Fluo, which will be released via Maven

Re: Question regarding incubator status page

The expectation is that all podlings site should have "Team" page to list all PPMCs and committers. But I understand the confusion, because I do not see it mention in podling site guide [1] nor any top level guide Also, the statement kind of hint that you no longer need to update the table once

[DISCUSS] BatchEE Graduation Trajectory

Changing the title to clarify what we're talking about now. John On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:48 PM Mark Struberg wrote: > Given that Geronimo is nowadays more a kind of „EE commons“, it might fit > in there. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > Am 08.08.2016 um 22:32 schrieb

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

Given that Geronimo is nowadays more a kind of „EE commons“, it might fit in there. LieGrue, strub > Am 08.08.2016 um 22:32 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > Le 8 août 2016 21:04, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" a écrit : >> >> Hi John, >> >> I've probably

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

Le 8 août 2016 21:04, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" a écrit : > > Hi John, > > I've probably missed your ping. That's right that last month I didn't sign for two reasons: > 1. the report was empty > 2. I don't see lot of activity on the BatchEE project: > 2.1. There are some commits (

[VOTE] Apache Annotator

Hi all! Thanks for everyone who's contributed to the discussion around the Apache Annotator proposal: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AnnotatorProposal >From what our Champion tells me, we're now ready to go to a vote! We have a long and eager list of contributors, a key focus around

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:28 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > How hard would that be? To be brutally honest: to me (as the original author of the code), fairly easy. For others, perhaps not so much. I would be quite willing to do the bulk of the initial work enabling this. It

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

Our Wiki tends to loose content, behaves badly on conflicts, the login mechanism is flawed and is pretty often offline/non-responsive. It just now took 3 minutes to serve an edit request.. I'm not using it often, but the Whimsy/SVNsupported process for TLP reports works FAR better.

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

Hi John, I've probably missed your ping. That's right that last month I didn't sign for two reasons: 1. the report was empty 2. I don't see lot of activity on the BatchEE project: 2.1. There are some commits (https://github.com/apache/incubator-batchee/commits/master) but not super active

Re: ARIA TOSCA Project Proposal

Daniel, thanks for the feedback! I think that picking a completely unique name for a project these days has become impossible. Other names we were considering when we chose ARIA were in use in other places as well. There is no ASF project that uses the name ARIA(yet:), and nothing in the

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

2016-08-08 17:57 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament : > Romain, > > I've actually been pushing to get BatchEE to graduate for some time. IMHO > there's no more benefit in the incubator for you guys. > > Ok so this shouldn't be understood as a blocker to graduate. > I'm pointing out

Re: Could you grant me the access to upload eagle's artifacts to maven repository?

Your user will have to get added to nexus, can you please put in an infra ticket for this -Jake On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Michael Wu wrote: > Hi there, > > My apache account is "mw". > > I was trying to use > > $> mvn -Papache-release -DskipTests

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

Romain, I've actually been pushing to get BatchEE to graduate for some time. IMHO there's no more benefit in the incubator for you guys. I'm pointing out the issue, as last month a mentor refused sign off due to lack of content in your report. The current report doesn't seem to be much better.

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

Hi John, Think we can be blamed to not have answered you but we took actions in general. That said Mark was more pointing out that if there are issues with the content it should probably be sent to batchee too explaining why and what is expected/how we can enhance it. Typically this time you

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

How hard would that be? is there data we could seed? On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM Sam Ruby wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > On 08/08/2016 10:03 AM, Christopher wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

-1 (non-binding) to moving this to svn or git. I think this kind of content should have the editing access point as close as possible to the consuming access point. Wikis are also notoriously easy to use. (I would prefer cwiki though.) The point is to encourage participation. Greets, Myrle

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:47 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > John, others. Would you please also add in the BatchEE amendments I did > today. > > Next time a draft is sent, it will be picked up (its just copy and paste). > The feedback mechanism is great but we could

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

-1 to CMS from this angle as well. I used it for a bit, but always had unpredictable results. Wiki or Whimsy seem to work well and allow universal access. On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:15 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Huge -1 to CMS, we want to move away from it as I

Question regarding incubator status page

All, The Juneau podling pointed this line on the status page template to me, which at least to me doesn't make sense: If the project website and code repository are not yet setup, use the following table: So are we not supposed to include the table if the website is up? Do we expect podlings

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

Huge -1 to CMS, we want to move away from it as I understand. This is the last diff of yours that I can find: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/August2016?action=diff=89=90 John On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > Another possible option would be

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 08/08/2016 10:03 AM, Christopher wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark Struberg >> wrote: >> >>> Another possible option would be to move it to our CMS. >>> >>> That would bring us

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

On 08/08/2016 10:03 AM, Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark Struberg > wrote: > >> Another possible option would be to move it to our CMS. >> >> That would bring us SVN for the people who prefer vi, but also a graphical >> UI for editing. >> And it

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > Another possible option would be to move it to our CMS. > > That would bring us SVN for the people who prefer vi, but also a graphical > UI for editing. > And it would make people make familiar with our CMS. I

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

John, others. Would you please also add in the BatchEE amendments I did today. The feedback mechanism is great but we could improve this by also sending a mail to the respective podling if you have feedback. That way we could fix left-overs and missed paragraphs much easier. txs and LieGrue,

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

Another possible option would be to move it to our CMS. That would bring us SVN for the people who prefer vi, but also a graphical UI for editing. And it would make people make familiar with our CMS. Wdyt? LieGrue, strub > On Monday, 8 August 2016, 9:28, Mark Struberg

[DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

Hi! Just now it happened again that we seems to have lost changes on the Reports I'm pretty confident I made. Point is: we use SVN for our TLP reports since forever. Why do we still fiddle around with that weird Wiki for the incubator board reports? What is necessary to move the incubator