Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > I wonder if the requirement might be better phrased along the lines of > "must have releases completed by a total of > 2 release managers". I really like this criteria and use it extensively with my podlings. Thanks,

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Makoto Yui wrote: > >> There are 5 individuals, excluding project committers, sent pull requests >> to the project before moving to ALv2: smly, y-tag,

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Makoto Yui wrote: > There are 5 individuals, excluding project committers, sent pull requests > to the project before moving to ALv2: smly, y-tag, ryukobayashi, > spiritloose, and takahi-i. I assume that all the "project committers" (if

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

Hi, > I think what we have to do is listing Copyrights and Licenses in NOTICE file > as seen in > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE#L86 > > Is my understanding right? No, that notice file is IMO a poor example to copy from. MIT and BSD licenses need to be mentioned in LICENSE

Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

I wonder if the requirement might be better phrased along the lines of "must have releases completed by a total of > 2 release managers". Asking people if their documentation is correct and complete almost always results in a yes answer and a moral onus on the questioner to either accept that

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Makoto Yui wrote: > Hi Marvin, > > 2016-08-24 1:23 GMT+09:00 Marvin Humphrey : >> Looking at the Github history, though, it seems that there were pull requests >> and issues file by others prior to the Mar 16, 2015

Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

+1 Especially for point 2, adding to the maturity model. Finding a release manager can be a problem, but is also an opportunity: a committer who wants to become more involved with project governance can volunteer to be RM. A well-functioning project makes this process as smooth as possible.

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

Hi Marvin, 2016-08-24 1:23 GMT+09:00 Marvin Humphrey : > Looking at the Github history, though, it seems that there were pull requests > and issues file by others prior to the Mar 16, 2015 relicensing. Were there > any contributions made before then by people not employed

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Makoto Yui wrote: > Hi Marvin, > > I'm going to answer your two questions. > >> 1) Who were the copyright holders at the time of relicensing? > > At the time of re-licensing, the copyright holder was AIST, > my employer at that time.

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Geode 1.0.0-incubating.M3 released

The Apache Geode team is proud to announce Apache Geode release 1.0.0-incubating.M3. Apache Geode (incubating) is a data management platform that provides a database-like consistency model, reliable transaction processing and a shared-nothing architecture to maintain very low latency performance

Re: Is the incubator full?

Hi John, Fair question. I think we accepted lot of projects in the incubator recently. IMHO, the first action to do is to check with the current podlings the ones ready to graduate. I think we have at least 2 or 3 podlings ready. On the other hand, we can also double check the global

Is the incubator full?

All, I'm wondering if the Apache Incubator is full right now? I've noticed a few things: - There was a note a few months ago that the incubator does have a max capacity. At that point, things start to slow down. - The discussions involved when a new project comes in have dwindled. - The number

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Accept ARIA-TOSCA into the Apache Incubator

With 3 +1 binding votes, and NO -1 and/or +-0 votes I believe this VOTE passes. Thanks to everyone who voted. Here's the tally: +1 binding: Jakob Homan Suneel Marthi John D. Ament Thanks, Arthur On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:19 PM John D. Ament wrote: > +1 look forward

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

Hi Marvin, I'm going to answer your two questions. > 1) Who were the copyright holders at the time of relicensing? At the time of re-licensing, the copyright holder was AIST, my employer at that time. > 2) How was their permission secured? Hivemall was at that time my solo research project at

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Agreed for OpenCSV, but I would like to check if there's no other code coming from other projects. Regards JB On 08/23/2016 02:32 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, - check with the team about the origin of some code (and eventually update the NOTICE) There’s probably no need to add anything

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Hi, > - check with the team about the origin of some code (and eventually update > the NOTICE) There’s probably no need to add anything to NOTICE as openCSV doesn’t have a NOTICE file. [1][2] Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep 2.

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Makoto Yui wrote: > 2016-08-23 2:20 GMT+09:00 Roman Shaposhnik : >> Two of the areas that I'd like to explicitly solicit IPMC's opinion >> on are: >> >> 1. whether the process of re-licensing from LGPL to ALv2 >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

Hi Roman, Thank for the comments. 2016-08-23 2:20 GMT+09:00 Roman Shaposhnik : > Two of the areas that I'd like to explicitly solicit IPMC's opinion > on are: > 1. whether the process of re-licensing from LGPL to ALv2 > was enough given the ASF's strict IP policies The

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

+1 (binding) Three things will be improved for new release (I will create the corresponding Jira): - binary file used in test (it should be generated with the test) - change headers in some files - check with the team about the origin of some code (and eventually update the NOTICE) Regards

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Hi, Changing my vote to +1 as the issue will be fixed next release and are more documentation issues than licensing issues. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Fair enough, I will ask to do that. Regards JB On 08/23/2016 08:38 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, regarding the binary file (part-0*.carbondata), it's used only for the test. I proposed to improve this by generating the file during the test instead. Sounds good. For the headers, good

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Hi, > regarding the binary file (part-0*.carbondata), it's used only for the test. > I proposed to improve this by generating the file during the test instead. Sounds good. > For the headers, good catch, rat checked if the header is there but not the > actual header. No need to cancel given

[CANCEL][VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

I cancel this vote to fix license headers in some files. Thanks, Regards JB On 08/22/2016 05:19 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Hi all, the PPMC vote to release Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating has passed. Now, we kindly submit this release to the IPMC. Here's the PPMC vote thread:

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

By the way, yes, the files were part of the software grant. We did renaming and cleaning but we missed these ones. Thanks again! Regards JB On 08/23/2016 03:34 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, -1 binding until issues below discussed / resolved. I assume it’s probably OK and just left over

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Hi Justin, regarding the binary file (part-0*.carbondata), it's used only for the test. I proposed to improve this by generating the file during the test instead. For the headers, good catch, rat checked if the header is there but not the actual header. I cancel this vote and submit a new