I agree.
For example it would help heaps if there was a list of violations podling
releases make, and which are immediate showstoppers and which need to be noted
(filed as tickets) and fixed in a release before graduation.
Certainly, having that list would help land this discussion a bit better
Hi,
> This class is not GPL. It was written by me. It is based on the ProgPoW
> algorithm specification. That specification is licensed CC0, scroll to the
> bottom of the README please:
> https://github.com/ifdefelse/ProgPOW/blob/master/README.md
Thanks for clarifying that, you might want to m
HI,
> Before putting it to the board, have we ever had a IPMC vote on the matter?
Sure if you think one is needed, but probably best to have some discussion
about it first.
> So perhaps if we set an incubator policy of a podling release being a
> little more lenient
We do not own the release p
Hi Justin,
This class is not GPL. It was written by me. It is based on the ProgPoW
algorithm specification. That specification is licensed CC0, scroll to the
bottom of the README please:
https://github.com/ifdefelse/ProgPOW/blob/master/README.md
I’ll address the other points separately.
> On
Kevin and Justin,
This is spot on.
Disclaimer, signatures/checksums, Apache license, and a start to notes are the
minimum.
Acceptance of issues to fix is also a requirement.
Full compliance with Apache Release and Distribution Policies are some of our
agreed Incubation requirements for gradua
Hi Justin,
Before putting it to the board, have we ever had a IPMC vote on the
matter? I think the board wants to delegate because legally, there
isn't a chance in hell they are going to vote on it any way but
negatively because to me, they have no choice but to formally say no.
This is a possib
Hi,
-1 for missing DISCLAIMER, GPL source code in the release and a compiled code
in the release.
I suggest you use a checklist like this one to help you. [1]. This page is also
very useful when making your license and notice filed [2].
If you need any help or want the IPMC to check think befo
Hi,
It been suggested a few times by several people on several lists that podling
releases (particularly early one’s) don’t need to comply with release and
distribution policy even if they have serious issues. The question has been
asked to the board several times but we’ve never got a clear an
+1 (binding)
Here are what I checked
* Built the kit from source
* Checked the release tag and release note
* There is no binary in the source release kit
* License and Notice are OK
Willem Jiang
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:56 AM Jorge Quilcate
wrote:
>
> H
Apologies for the delay.
-1 (binding)
Policy violations:
The missing DISCLAIMER in the source release is a blocker.
Please move https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tuweni to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tuweni for the next candidate.
I checked the signatures and checksums
The disclaimer is missing from the source distribution, indeed. Sorry for that
oversight.
> On May 31, 2019, at 10:24 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>
> I could not find the disclaimer from
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#disclaimers anywhere in
> the release.
>
> Kenn
>
> On T
I could not find the disclaimer from
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#disclaimers anywhere in
the release.
Kenn
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:47 AM Antoine Toulme wrote:
> Hello IPMC,
>
> The Apache Tuweni community has voted on and approved a proposal to
> release Apache Tuweni (i
12 matches
Mail list logo
