On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Paul King wrote:
> ...I actually think what we ended up with does make it clearer
> exactly what is going on
Definitely - what Groovy did avoids having Mysterious Binaries in
their releases, which we don't want.
-Bertrand
Yeah, Paul makes a very good point. When you're new to a platform and
trying to debug tests, trying to find out whats hidden inside mysterious
test jars etc is often tedious at best. Build at test time is ideal.
Tom
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch
Great news. I see your commit for the mailing lists. Before infra can
process them, you'll need to create a JIRA for the DNS entries (or they may
end up just creating the DNS when they create the mailing lists... depends
on the infra admin). Here's an example JIRA from Ratis recently to do
this:
Hi Incubator PMC,
Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
CarbonData(incubating) version 1.0.0.
PPMC has passed the vote, here's the PPMC vote thread for 1.0.0 release:
http://apache-carbondata-mailing-list-archive.1130556.n5.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-CarbonData-1-0-0-incubati
+1 (binding)
Casting my vote here.
Regards
JB
On Jan 24, 2017, 13:59, at 13:59, Jacky Li <13561...@qq.com> wrote:
>Hi Incubator PMC,
>
>Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>CarbonData(incubating) version 1.0.0.
>
>PPMC has passed the vote, here's the PPMC vote thread
The vote passes: The results of the VOTE was:
+1 : 5
0: 0
-1:0
+1 (binding)
Justin Mclean
Drew Farris
John D. Ament
P. Taylor Goetz
Josh Elser
Vote Thread:
http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Gossip-version-gossip-0-1-1-incubating-RC2-td53327.html
Thank you everyon
*Hi all,*
After being opened for over more than 72 hours, the vote for releasing Apache
Mnemonic 0.4.0-incubating passed with 3 binding +1s, 1 non-binding +1s and no 0
or -1.
**Binding votes +1s:**
Patrick Hunt (phunt)
Henry Saputra (hsaputra)
Gangumalla, Uma (umamahesh)
**non-binding votes +1s
The single case that I can see for mystery jars in binary form is when a
test case needs to cover malformed binaries or binaries produced on
obsolete platforms (does anybody have a Java 1.3 compiler handy).
(don't answer that, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of people
still require 1.3 c
I think my argument is need vs require. Basically with this policy, we
would be telling people there are certain tools you may not use.
John
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:04 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> The single case that I can see for mystery jars in binary form is when a
> test case needs to cover
Hi,
Vote results been called, but I did check. All good but don’t forget to update
the year in your NOTICE file.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
All,
The Incubator PMC has received feedback from the board that changes may
need to be made to the structure of our report. Specifically, there is
confusion from the board members over how podlings get classified. There
is also a request to increase and improve mentor feedback on podling
report
There were a number of people who opposed the use of the maturity
model on this list in 2016. For instance, Greg Stein said: "There has
been past controversy on including that as a graduation step. I'm not
clear that was a proper addition." and "The Board has never required
the IPMC to use the APMM
Jim,
Don't read too deeply into my use of "Podling Maturity Assessment." The
sections of the current summary are simply "Ready to Graduate", "Some
Community Growth", "No Release" and "Still Getting Started." I'm simply
asking the podling to decide which of those 4 best describe themselves.
John
John,
What did you have in mind for “podling maturity assessment”? If it is simply
one of the existing phases - “still getting started”, “no release”, “community
growth”, “ready to graduate” - I can’t see that being contentious.
Julian
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 5:39 PM, Jim Apple wrote:
>
> Th
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:54 PM Julian Hyde wrote:
> John,
>
> What did you have in mind for “podling maturity assessment”? If it is
> simply one of the existing phases - “still getting started”, “no release”,
> “community growth”, “ready to graduate” - I can’t see that being
> contentious.
>
> J
Ah, sorry for the paragraphs, then.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:52 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Don't read too deeply into my use of "Podling Maturity Assessment." The
> sections of the current summary are simply "Ready to Graduate", "Some
> Community Growth", "No Release" and "Still Gettin
I'm fine with 1 and 3, but 2 gives me pause. I like the idea of the maturity
model, but is it yet another burden on mentors?
If we are trying to increase mentor engagement, we probably don't want to set
too high a bar.
-Taylor
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:15 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> All,
>
This looks out of date:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#who-auth-karma
It says:
Incubator Access Authorization
Special karma is required to authorize incubator access for committers.
This karma is limited to:
- PMC Chairs (past and present)
- Selected people in the
Answering myself, it went to git.
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=infrastructure-puppet.git;a=blob;f=modules/subversion_server/files/authorization/asf-authorization-template
Hen
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> This looks out of date:
>
> http://incubator.ap
19 matches
Mail list logo