[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-139?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15784850#comment-15784850
]
Bertrand Delacretaz commented on INCUBATOR-139:
---
No news on my side, the
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 4:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> ...is this a policy we want to keep around?...
I'm fine with removing it - community Darwinism at work ;-)
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubato
Thank you Romain. I have raised JIRA issue today and added all review
comments of this release. Please find the jira details below
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-357
Thanks,
Nazeer
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Nazeer
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 4:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>> ...is this a policy we want to keep around?...
>
> I'm fine with removing it - community Darwinism at work ;-)
+1 for the same reason I'm always +1 on removing dead/little used
You are trying to fix the wrong thing. The whole idea of the
-incubating moniker is to communicate to end users that the project is
inside the incubator, and can fail incubation. The only and best way
to get rid of the -incubating scheme is to *graduate*.
Don't remain in the incubator hiding in yo
Pssst really need you guys looking at the proposed replacement
documentation.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fab8122d7695e47bacbff680b83eb4ceed98539a7815e2232abf5d2f@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 1:21 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:5
I wonder how much analysys there was done before picking this -incubating
suffix.
It's really ASF specific and I doubt that most end users know what it is
supposed to mean.
An embryo undergoes incubation so it's easy to see how -incubating is
associated with an alpha product.
În joi, 29 dec. 20
Based on my experience, the term "incubating" is inferred (without my
digging around) as a beta/alpha quality release. Things may change, not
necessarily for production usage. It ends up giving a negative connotation
to the quality of the release contents, instead of clearly defining it as a
rele
I applaud your efforts!!! I may be a tad confused but why does the new text
[2] have the “Podling Constraints” section at all? They’re already stated in
[5].
Sorry this is a bit twisted, hope it’s accurate and you can follow it…
[2] is referring the reader to [4] and the last item in that [4] s
Hi,
-1 (binding) As package names don’t include incubating, release includes non
Category A licensed software, files incorrectly having Apache headers,
unexpected binary file in release and unable to compile from source.
I checked:
- package names do not contain “incubating”
- PGP key is not pu
Hi,
+1 binding
All of my usual checks done / compared with previous release.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Hi,
+1 (binding)
I checked:
- name includes incubating
- disclaimer exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE are good
- no unexpected binary files in release
- all source files have ASF headers
- can compile from source
It would be a good idea (IMO) to sign with an apache email address rather than
a sales f
Hi,
Nice and simple I like it. Perhaps add text or a link that podling releases
need to be voted on this list here before being released?
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For addi
I like it -- nice and simple. +1 to Justin's suggestion. Also,
consider adding a sentence or two
around the fact that podlings *may* get a pass on some of the more
stringent requirements
of a full blown TLP release, but a) it is not guaranteed b) it is up
to mentors/IPMC to define
what is appropria
John D. Ament created INCUBATOR-141:
---
Summary: Test
Key: INCUBATOR-141
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-141
Project: Incubator
Issue Type: Task
Components: Log
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> Hello Incubator PMC,
>
> The Apache Guacamole community has voted on and approved a proposal to
> release Apache Guacamole 0.9.10-incubating.
>
> We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote
> on this incubator release.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
John D. Ament updated INCUBATOR-141:
Attachment: thunder-christmas.jpg
> Test
>
>
> Key: INCUBATOR-141
>
All,
The IPMC (and Press department) will be announcing soon a CFP for a new
Incubator logo. I'd like to solicit some input on a page and set of
instructions to follow to gather these submissions. The page I've put
together is here: http://incubator.staging.apache.org/2017-logo-contest.html
I p
I'm confused. I thought the idea is to have a single JIRA ticket with
all contestants attaching their artwork to it. No?
Thanks,
Roman.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:54 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> All,
>
> The IPMC (and Press department) will be announcing soon a CFP for a new
> Incubator logo. I'd
Thank you, John. I'll test this evening or tomorrow morning ET.
Kind regards,Sally = = = = = vox +1 617 921 8656gvox +1 646 598 4616skype
sallykhudairi
From: John D. Ament
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" ; Sally
Khudairi
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 8:54 PM
Subject: Page for
Dale,
Thanks. Before publishing this, I was planning to remove the link on [5].
The policy docs are complete as they stand right now from my point of
view. Since [4] points to [5] I think that's fine assuming the link from
[5] to [3] goes away.
I'm fine with having a link going from [2] to [5]
That doesn't work well from a permission standpoint. Do you see any harm
in requesting a ticket per submission, or an author updating the ticket w/
new attachments?
John
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> I'm confused. I thought the idea is to have a single JIRA ticket w
I'm planning to add this, what do you think?
In order for a podling to receive full permission from the IPMC to execute
the release, the release
vote must be held on the incubator general list
and pass based on the http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes";>standard Package
Release vo
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:08 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> That doesn't work well from a permission standpoint.
Can you elaborate?
> Do you see any harm
> in requesting a ticket per submission, or an author updating the ticket w/
> new attachments?
Its not a huge deal, but it makes it a bit more d
This is what I'm trying to say with these sentences:
Those reviewing the releases will provide the release managers
with information about what is wrong with the release.
Release managers should consider issues reported as blocking, unless told
otherwise
by
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:08 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > That doesn't work well from a permission standpoint.
>
> Can you elaborate?
>
There's a permission that allows a user to attach a file and a permission
that would allow you to b
Yea...that's my cat.
I thought I did sign it with an Apache email address. I'll recheck that.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:27 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> I checked:
>
> - name includes incubating
>
> - disclaimer exists
>
> - LICENSE and NOTICE are good
>
> - no unexpec
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> This is what I'm trying to say with these sentences:
>
> Those reviewing the releases will provide the release managers
> with information about what is wrong with the release.
> Release managers should consider issues rep
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Roman Shaposhnik updated INCUBATOR-141:
---
Attachment: test.txt
This is a test attachment from a brand new account.
> Test
>
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:26 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:08 PM, John D. Ament
>> wrote:
>> > That doesn't work well from a permission standpoint.
>>
>> Can you elaborate?
>>
>
> There's a permission that allo
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:31 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > This is what I'm trying to say with these sentences:
> >
> > Those reviewing the releases will provide the release managers
> > with information about what is
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:37 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:26 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:08 PM, John D. Ament
> >> wrote:
> >> > That doesn't work well from a permission
I thought about it a little more. That existing top line makes some sense,
but I would say it should link to the ASF release policies and instead say
"See the ASF policies around releases in conjunction with this policy" , so
it would link to [4] (unfortunately that's a bidirectional link, but I
d
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:40 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:31 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament
>> wrote:
>> > This is what I'm trying to say with these sentences:
>> >
>> > Those reviewing the releases will provide the releas
34 matches
Mail list logo
