Re: [VOTE] Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3

Hi, > The git tag: > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.7.0-rc3 Also please include the git hash in the VOTE email. Git tags change be changed. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Streams version 0.3-incubating

Hi, +1 binding Everything checked as pre previous email. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3

Hi, +1 binding (only just). There are several minor issue please fix for next release. Please place build instruction and supported platforms in the README. The wiki may change over time and that may make it difficult to build older versions. I checked: - name contains incubating - signatures

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Now that the discussion thread on the NetBeans Proposal has ended, > please vote on accepting NetBeans into the Apache Incubator. > > The ASF voting rules are described at: >

Can you un-open-source a product? Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I’m kind of curious how we’d apply our “Community over Code” credo to a situation like this. It sounds like DataStax acquired a “community” centred on a product that had been open-sourced by its previous steward. And now their legal department is re-asserting control over the product. Fair

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I'd leave it open for now. I imagine/hope there are enough people aware of this thread that the sentiments expressed here might affect a change. -Taylor > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:57 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > > With obvious block due to Datastax response, shall I CLOSE

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yes, with a few binding -1's there is nothing to discuss unless Datastax wish to reconsider. I doubt they want to discuss that on a public list. Ross > -Original Message- > From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.sapu...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:57 PM > To:

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

With obvious block due to Datastax response, shall I CLOSE this DISCUSS thread until further updates, if any? On Thursday, September 29, 2016, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > For the record I'd be -1 as well unless DataStax chose to support it. > > I would like to give them time to

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

For the record I'd be -1 as well unless DataStax chose to support it. I would like to give them time to change their mind though. -Taylor > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> On Sep 29, 2016 19:22, "P. Taylor Goetz" wrote: >> ... >> They

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

On Sep 29, 2016 19:22, "P. Taylor Goetz" wrote: >... > They can block a move to the ASF, but they can’t block a fork of the project moving elsewhere. Strong communities will regroup and live on. DataStax' reluctance to allow it could very easily be interpreted as a rejection of

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yes, please read that thread, and my response. Yes, DataStax’ current response would make this a hostile fork, but I think they should be given a chance to reconsider their stance. The ASF doesn’t want to accept hostile forks. I understand and agree with that. They can block a move to the ASF,

VOTE: HTrace 4.2-incubating release

Dear IPMC, please vote on our latest release candidate as an Apache Incubator project. Apache HTrace (incubating), has voted to release the below referenced Apache HTrace 4.2.0-incubating release candidate. Vote thread here:

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yep. As Greg points out this is to be considered a hostile fork. So I'm -1 as well. --- Twitter: @rgardler From: Henry Saputra Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:55:58 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Thanks, it shows up as separate thread so I missed it. On Thursday, September 29, 2016, John D. Ament wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:40 PM Henry Saputra > > wrote: > > > Which other thread are you referring to? > > > > > A

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:40 PM Henry Saputra wrote: > Which other thread are you referring to? > > A response was received from DataStax legal.

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Ah the other Jadon from Datastax. Sorry, somehow the thread did not line up properly. On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Henry Saputra wrote: > Which other thread are you referring to? > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Greg Stein

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Which other thread are you referring to? On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Greg Stein wrote: > -1 (binding) > > See other-thread from Jason at DataStax. This would be considered a hostile > fork, and as Bertrand noted, the ASF does not want to accept such. > > On Sep 28, 2016

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi Jason, I am not a lawyer, and the following only represents my personal voice, not necessarily that of the ASF or my employer. While DataStax objecting to this proposal will potentially block the incubation of a project based on the Titan codebase at the ASF, it will not prevent the same

Re: MySQL FOSS License Exception

Donald Szeto wrote on 9/29/16 6:13 PM: > Hi all, > > I have searched around the Internet and haven't seen this discussed > (appreciate pointers if I missed any existing discussion). > > The exception: https://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ > > I am curious how Apache view

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

-1 (binding) See other-thread from Jason at DataStax. This would be considered a hostile fork, and as Bertrand noted, the ASF does not want to accept such. On Sep 28, 2016 21:02, "Henry Saputra" wrote: > Hi All, > > Please find below a proposal for a new incubator

October 2016 Incubator report timeline

October 2016 Incubator report timeline: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2016 Wed October 05 -- Podling reports due by end of day Sun October 09 -- Shepherd reviews due by end of day Sun October 09 -- Summary due by end of day Tue October 11 -- Mentor signoff due by

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

Hi, > AFAIK, the incoming ant repo is covered by the Sonatype software grant: what > precise 3rd party code are you concerned about? From a quick look there BSD and code copyright copyright various other people [1] Copyright (c) 2000 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights Copyright (c)

[DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hello - my name is Jason Anderson with the DataStax legal group. On behalf of DataStax, I wanted to clarify any potential confusion regarding the DataStax position on Titan. As several posts here have explained, DataStax owns the copyright and trademark rights to Titan. DataStax does not

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

honestly, there is not plan for Sisu currently: Sisu is less Maven centric (even if I don't have clear view of how it is used outside Maven , but an IoC component is quite generic) but for sure, never say never Regards, Hervé Le mercredi 28 septembre 2016 17:38:59 Jochen Wiedmann a écrit : >

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

yes, for sure, -1 until answered AFAIK, the incoming ant repo is covered by the Sonatype software grant: what precise 3rd party code are you concerned about? Regards, Hervé Le jeudi 29 septembre 2016 22:51:23 jus...@classsoftware.com a écrit : > Hi, > > Sorry but -1 (binding) until this is

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

+1 -"P. Taylor Goetz" wrote: - To: general@incubator.apache.org From: "P. Taylor Goetz" Date: 09/29/2016 06:09PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal In my mind a "hostile fork" is a fork of a project that goes against the wishes

[VOTE][RESULT] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

Dear all, Thanks everyone for their votes and comments. I'm pleased to announce that this vote has passed with the following results: 3 binding +1 Alan Gates: +1 (binding) Justin Mclean: +1 binding Jean-Baptiste Onofré: +1 (binding) 2 non-binding +1 and one 0 Nicolas Kourtellis: +1 Flavio

MySQL FOSS License Exception

Hi all, I have searched around the Internet and haven't seen this discussed (appreciate pointers if I missed any existing discussion). The exception: https://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ I am curious how Apache view this exception. Is it okay for Apache source code to

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

In my mind a "hostile fork" is a fork of a project that goes against the wishes of the copyright holders and/or community. I don't consider this proposal to be a hostile fork. In this case the community is eager to see the project move forward, but the owners of both the copyright and the keys

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I think the simplest definition of a "hostile fork" is this: Does the copyright owner object to the fork? Yes - it's hostile No - it’s not hostile Ross > -Original Message- > From: Julian Hyde [mailto:jh...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:11 PM > To:

Re: Toree's LGPL Dependency resolved!

Congrats guys! This is great news On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Gino Bustelo wrote: > Just wanted to announce that the Apache Toree team was able to work with > the JeroMQ (https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq) team to get their library > relicensed as MPL v2. This is a key

Toree's LGPL Dependency resolved!

Just wanted to announce that the Apache Toree team was able to work with the JeroMQ (https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq) team to get their library relicensed as MPL v2. This is a key milestone for the Toree project, as it allow us to produce regular releases. This is a great example of inter-OSS

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Some clarification of what constitutes a “hostile fork” would indeed be useful. On a few occasions I have had discussions with communities on joining Apache, and this often comes up. We have relied on precedent — and in particular, on-the-record comments by board members on this list — and it

[IP CLEARANCE] Apache Storm JMS Integration

Apache Storm has received a code donation for Storm JMS Integration: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/storm-jms.html The source code can be found at https://github.com/ptgoetz/storm-jms

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

The precedent set by Bloodhound, and other projects suggest to me that you could simply move forward after giving legal@ a heads up and just seeing if there are any objections..or if lazy consensus just move forward and deal with it during Incubation. On 9/29/16, 11:33 AM, "Henry Saputra"

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Thanks for the insights, Ross, Bertrand, JB, and Chris, As Alan has mentioned before, we have attempted numerous times and channels to ask DataStax whether they opposed to us taking a fork to Apache with no avail. If anyone has connection to Datastax or especially the Titan team here, we would

[CANCEL][VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.10.0 (incubating) RC4

Thank you for pointing out all issues. I have not received a reply from the photographer, so I will cancel this vote and roll a new RC. Thanks! Regards, Donald On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Donald Szeto

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yep this thread sounds very similar to those discussions. I think we have the story emerging here that we can move forward with. Cheers, Chris On 9/29/16, 11:05 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: Hi Chris, On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Chris Mattmann

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi Chris, On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote: > ...I have a bit of a different understanding. We only accept code > contributions > that want to be here This sounds similar to the discussions we had about Bloodhound back in early 2012 - Roy had some

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Ross is correct. Chris On 9/29/16, 8:15 AM, "Ross Gardler" wrote: OK, if Datastax are not objecting to the move then this is not a hostile fork. You should have your champion get clearance from legal@ for accepting this code under the open source license it

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi Bertrand, I have a bit of a different understanding. We only accept code contributions that want to be here. If the license for this project is ALv2 upstream from DataStax then the community coming here for Olympian may fork the project and so long as those committers and PMC part of the new

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

When we asked DataStax if they would sign a code grant, they were clear that they would not. When we asked if they were opposed to us taking a fork to Apache, we got no response, despite trying on multiple channels. I don’t know if this is enough to accept the podling or not, but it’s the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Streams version 0.3-incubating

Justin, The release candidate artifacts have been placed in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/streams/0.3-incubating/ https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/streams wasn’t mentioned in our release process documentation (Now it is). Thanks, Steve On September 28, 2016

Re: [VOTE] Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3

+1 On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > Hey Jim, > > Just a quick note: I think several of the mentors (myself included) might > be busy at Strata/Hadoop World this week, so might be tough to get the > votes in within 72 hours. If the required 3 votes aren't

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I think we are in similar situation like Metron (https://wiki.apache.org/ incubator/MetronProposal) where there is also need to fork from original repo. - Henry On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Susan Malaika wrote: > Hi JB > Datastax know about the incubator effort. As far

Re: [VOTE] Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3

Hey Jim, Just a quick note: I think several of the mentors (myself included) might be busy at Strata/Hadoop World this week, so might be tough to get the votes in within 72 hours. If the required 3 votes aren't in by early next week, I should have more time to check the release then. Thanks

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

OK, if Datastax are not objecting to the move then this is not a hostile fork. You should have your champion get clearance from legal@ for accepting this code under the open source license it is published under rather than under the SGA. Ross > -Original Message- > From: Ted Wilmes

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hello Ross, Per another one of the proposal submitters, Misha Brukman: "Datastax is not against the move of Titan to ASF but has stated that they will neither support or block it, as long as it doesn't involve them participating or signing the software grant" I've CC'ed him to get him onto this

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I see the GitHub code is untouched for over a year. Are Datastax objecting to the proposal or is it just that they are unwilling to actively supporting it? Ross > -Original Message- > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:23 AM >

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi Susan, community interest is the key part for sure. But we would like to avoid any trouble about the grant agreement, etc. Just my $0.01 Regards JB On 09/29/2016 03:03 PM, Susan Malaika wrote: Hi JB Datastax know about the incubator effort. As far as I know they will not sign the

Re: Git release candidate tagging policy? [was: Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating]

On 28 September 2016 at 16:40, Mark Struberg wrote: > But otoh if a project decides to use -RC1..17 it's also fine. > BUT: they pollute their branches and tags and they actually would need to do > a 2nd VOTE afterwards on the .Final release. So it is much more work and

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

And here is my +1 So we have 3 +1 bindings (Justin, JB, me) and 1 +1 non binding (Stian) and no other votes so the release passes. Thanks to all who had a look. Will continue with the release steps. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

The Titan community is serviced by the aureliusgraphs Google group, which is actually moderated by Datastax employees. I started a thread last week about continuing progress with Titan at Apache [1]. The intent with this proposal is not to fracture the Titan community, rather to preserve it. The

Re: [VOTE] Apache Unomi 1.1.0-incubating release

Hi, Thank you for your reply, we'll fix the issues with the license and hopefully get back to you in a few days ! Regards, Thomas On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:25 AM Thomas Draier wrote: > Hi, > > The Unomi community has voted for the release of Apache Unomi 1.1.0 >

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

+1 Thank you On Sep 28, 2016 10:25 AM, "Hervé Boutemy" wrote: > Apache Maven received a code donation for Aether, that we renamed to Maven > Artifact Resolver to fix a trademark issue: > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/maven-aether.html > > The import plan is

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi JB Datastax know about the incubator effort. As far as I know they will not sign the grant agreement. I was under the impression that the incubator proposal can proceed after discussion if there is sufficient community interest. Susan Malaika -Jean-Baptiste Onofré

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

Hi, Sorry but -1 (binding) until this is answered. > I notice the ant repo contains other 3rd party code. I assume this is not > going to part of the software grant? Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

+1 Regards JB On 09/28/2016 05:25 PM, Hervé Boutemy wrote: Apache Maven received a code donation for Aether, that we renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver to fix a trademark issue: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/maven-aether.html The import plan is more detailed at

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi Henry, Is DataStax know and agree with the fork ? Else, the Software Grant Agreement won't be possible and it won't be able to easy to head to graduation. Regards JB On 09/29/2016 06:01 AM, Henry Saputra wrote: Hi All, Please find below a proposal for a new incubator podling, Apache

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi, On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Henry Saputra wrote: > ...This project will be a fork of Titan graph database project... > ...The project was created by company called Aurelius and was acquired by > Datstax... We only accept friendly forks, and it looks like Titan

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

+1 as a red flag, but not a blocker. For it to work, larger parts of the existing contributors need to be convinced to join the Apache effort. There are not license differences, so cross-pollination is possible. Another concern is the name "Olympian", the International Olympic Committee is well

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

+1 LieGrue, strub > On Thursday, 29 September 2016, 2:00, Olivier Lamy wrote: > > +1 > > On 29 September 2016 at 01:25, Hervé Boutemy wrote: > >> Apache Maven received a code donation for Aether, that we renamed to Maven >> Artifact Resolver to

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

On 29/09/2016 04:01, Henry Saputra wrote: > The project will be forked off the existing Titan code base. That is a red flag. jonathon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands,

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya < nandana@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Best Regards, > Nandana > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Ate Douma wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Now that the discussion thread on the NetBeans