On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 5:25 AM Julian Hyde wrote:
> ...is there any guidance for how to review a release that contains source and
> binary tar-balls..
>... As a reviewer, how am I to vote on this release candidate?...
When that happens I just vote on the source archive and include it's
digest
Julian Hyde wrote on Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:33:55 -0800:
> The question with which I started this discussion has not been
> answered. Given that a collection of artifacts is up for a vote, and
> those artifacts are a mixture of source and binary artifacts, what is
> a reviewer to do:
>
> 1. Vote
Myrle Krantz wrote on Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 17:19:35 +0100:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:12 PM Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>
> > The answer to (1) depends on the build platform and toolchain.
> > Reproducible builds [in the sense of "building the same source twice
> > gives bit-for-bit identical
IMO something real is missing from this whole conversation.
Does the ASF want to have successful projects? Honest question time. Would
Tomcat have been successful if there had been source only downloads with no
“official" runnable software? Were all those users for all those years
compiling
Hi Justin
Thanks for pointing out. And yes, it is BSD-2. I will fix this in next release.
--
Sheng Wu
Apache SkyWalking & Sharding-Sphere
-- Original --
From: "justin";
Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2018 01:32 PM
To: "general";
Subject: Re:
Hi -
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 14, 2018, at 11:33 AM, Julian Hyde wrote:
>
> The question with which I started this discussion has not been
> answered. Given that a collection of artifacts is up for a vote, and
> those artifacts are a mixture of source and binary artifacts, what is
> a
+1 to everything Mark Thomas said.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 3:08 AM Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> On 13/11/2018 20:49, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > Personally, given the amount of binary releases that are distributed off of
> > our very own infrastructure (and I'm not even counting our namespace
> > on
The question with which I started this discussion has not been
answered. Given that a collection of artifacts is up for a vote, and
those artifacts are a mixture of source and binary artifacts, what is
a reviewer to do:
1. Vote -1. The release contains binaries.
2. Perform some cursory checks on
Quick update: James Taylor has offered to mentor the project as well, so
I've added him to the list. Thanks, James!
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:06 AM Ryan Blue wrote:
> The discuss thread seems to have reached consensus, so I propose accepting
> the Iceberg project for incubation.
>
> The
Congratulations! As champion, I think the next steps are:
1 - Xiangdong, Can you confirm the list of mentors on the proposal is
accurate?
2 - Also Xiangdong, Is there anyone else that stepped forward as a mentor
during the voting process that the project wants the IPMC to approve?
3 - Justin,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:12 PM Daniel Shahaf
wrote:
> The answer to (1) depends on the build platform and toolchain.
> Reproducible builds [in the sense of "building the same source twice
> gives bit-for-bit identical binaries"] can help with it. When the
> answer is negative, the next
Hi all,
Apache SkyWalking (incubating) Team is glad to announce the first release of
Apache SkyWalking Incubating 6.0.0-alpha.
SkyWalking: APM (application performance monitor) tool for distributed systems,
especially designed for microservices, cloud native and container-based
(Docker,
What about maven repos? Are those by definition not generally binary releases?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 14, 2018, at 5:12 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> Myrle Krantz wrote on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:24 +0100:
>> I had understood the reason that the foundation only officially supports
>> source
The vote for releasing Apache SkyWalking 6.0.0-alpha (incubating) is closed,
now.
Vote result:
5 (+1 binding) Willem Jiang, Luke Han, Justin Mclean, Mick Semb Wever,
Jean-Baptiste Onofr??
1 (+1 no binding) William Guo.
Thank you everyone for taking the time to review the release and help us.
Myrle Krantz wrote on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:24 +0100:
> I had understood the reason that the foundation only officially supports
> source releases to be the fear of undetected malware in the release (like
> in the Ken Thompson hack).
>
> Is that correct? Are we all are in agreement that the
The reason we "only officially" support source code releases is because that is
what we produce.
> On Nov 14, 2018, at 6:24 AM, Myrle Krantz wrote:
>
> I had understood the reason that the foundation only officially supports
> source releases to be the fear of undetected malware in the release
Hi,
With 8 +1 binding votes, 2 +1 non-binding votes and No +/-0 or -1 votes, this
VOTE passes.
Thanks to everyone who voted!
Bellow is a voting tally:
Binding
Von Gosling
Christofer Dutz
Kevin A. McGrail
Felix Cheung
Matt Sticker
Joe Witt
Justin Mclean
Willem Jiang
Non-binding
I had understood the reason that the foundation only officially supports
source releases to be the fear of undetected malware in the release (like
in the Ken Thompson hack).
Is that correct? Are we all are in agreement that the probability of that
kind of hack is very low?
I'd extend that by
On 13/11/2018 20:49, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Personally, given the amount of binary releases that are distributed off of
> our very own infrastructure (and I'm not even counting our namespace
> on things like Docker hub -- I'm just talking about the INFRA we run) I don't
> think that the
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On 13/11/2018 18:06, Ryan Blue wrote:
> The discuss thread seems to have reached consensus, so I propose accepting
> the Iceberg project for incubation.
>
> The proposal is copied below and in the wiki:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IcebergProposal
>
> Please vote
+1 (binding)
Checked the build, signature and headers.
Regards
JB
On 10/11/2018 12:49, Sheng Wu wrote:
> Hi All,
> This is a call for vote to release Apache SkyWalking (Incubating) version
> 6.0.0-alpha.
>
>
> The Apache SkyWalking community has tested, voted and approved the proposed
>
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 7:48 AM Uwe L. Korn wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Great to see this here!
>
> > Am 14.11.2018 um 04:07 schrieb James Taylor :
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 4:15 PM Willem Jiang
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 (binding)
> >>
> >> Willem Jiang
>
> Voting will start now (10th Nov. date) and will remain open for at least
> 72 hours, Request IPMC to give their vote.
> [ ] +1 Release this package.
> [ ] +0 No opinion.
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because
+1 (binding)
Checked:
- signatures and digests
- source download
23 matches
Mail list logo
