+1 (no-binding)
checked:
- LICENSE, DISCLAIMER and NOTICE
- incubating is in the version
- source build with java8 succ
Jean-Baptiste Onofré 于2024年7月31日周三 13:32写道：
> +1 (binding)
>
> I checked:
> - LICENSE, DISCLAIMER and NOTICE look good (I saw PJ's comment, but I
> think NOTICE is correct as
+1, binding
- Download links are good
- LICENSE DISCLAIMER, NOTICE files are good in source and binary releases
- Incubating in the name
- Signatures and checksums are fine
- No binary file found in the source release
- Didn't finish building from the source due to network issues with
apache-sna
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 06:42, Weiting Chen wrote:
>
> No worry, I use the same KEYS in
> https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/gluten/KEYS to sign the artifacts.
The point is that readers of the email need to use the same KEYS file
that is provided on download pages.
The file in the dev tree is
+1 (binding) from me, and I checked the following items:
- [X] Download links are valid.
- [X] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
- [X] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for the repository.
- [X] All files have license headers if necessary.
- [X] No compiled archives bundled in the source
Dear IPMC members,
The KIE podling is preparing for its first Apache release. Due to the
numerous artifacts we build across various repositories (container
images, Java libraries, web apps, etc.), we seek to automate the SVN
upload as part of our release procedures.
Note: Currently, the KIE podli
On 8/1/24 12:42, Alex Porcelli wrote:
Dear IPMC members,
The KIE podling is preparing for its first Apache release. Due to the
numerous artifacts we build across various repositories (container
images, Java libraries, web apps, etc.), we seek to automate the SVN
upload as part of our release pro
Thank you for the detailed information, Daniel!
Although I'm not an IPMC member, I'd like to express that option 3
looks almost like a no brainer :)
Looking forward to hearing from IPMC members.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 7:02 AM Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
> On 8/1/24 12:42, Alex Porcelli wrote:
> > Dea
Thanks for the detailed breakdown of the issue.
Ideally option 3 if it is feasible to implement. I'm not against
option 2 as a short term solution to unblock KIE release.
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 12:14, Alex Porcelli wrote:
>
> Thank you for the detailed information, Daniel!
>
> Although I'm not an
Hello Incubator PMC,
The vote to release Apache Amoro(incubating) 0.7.0-incubating rc2 has
passed with 4 +1 binding votes and 2 +1 non-binding votes, no +0 or -1
votes.
Binding votes：
- Xinyu Zhou
- Jean-Baptiste Onofré
- Kent Yao
- Charles Zhang
Non-binding votes:
- Xavier Bai
- ConradJam
Vo
Ok, got it.
So do you suggest to re-send a new vote or we can continue to use this one?
On 2024/08/01 07:39:18 sebb wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 06:42, Weiting Chen wrote:
> >
> > No worry, I use the same KEYS in
> > https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/gluten/KEYS to sign the artifacts.
>
Glad to see Polaris to join Apache incubator, together with Iceberg and
other ecosystems.
As a mentor of Gravitino project, I think the two projects have different
visions and can work together: Gravitino is an open data catalog for
various data sources including data lake formats, and Polaris is
You don't need to start a new vote, as far as I am concerned.
With future votes, you should use the correct downloads.apache.org
link for the KEYS.
Do you have any templates for the emails in your release guide? If so,
can you correct the links? If you don't have the email templates,
maybe you sho
Hi,
Given it is shared already, option 2 seems fine. It is version control, so any
issues, if they occur, should be able to be easily corrected.
Kind Regards,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 12:43, Weiting Chen wrote:
>
> Ok, got it.
> So do you suggest to re-send a new vote or we can continue to use this one?
That depends - are the files identical?
And will they remain so for the duration of this vote?
> On 2024/08/01 07:39:18 sebb wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Aug 20
Option 2, since it is already basically set up, seems like the appropriate
option, in my opinion.
BKP
Brian Proffitt
VP, Marketing & Publicity
VP, Conferences
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 8:42 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given it is shared already, option 2 seems fine. It is version control,
Hi Wangda,
Thanks for your message and your proposal. Now, we already have 5
mentors on the proposal. For good execution/mentoring, I think it's
largely enough. I will let know you if one mentor wants to be
replaced.
Thanks again!
Regards
JB
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:43 AM Wangda Tan wrote:
>
>
Hi Nicholas,
I think Gravitino and Polaris are complementary by addressing
different use cases.
Gravitino is focusing on metadata lake with metadata features
(metadata management, metadata governance, geo-distribution, AI asset
management).
Polaris is focusing on Apache Iceberg REST Catalog impl
+1 (binding)
I checked:
- Checksums and signatures are good
- LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER are there and look good
- ASF header is present in expected source files
- No binary files found in the source distribution
- Build from source distribution worked in java module with mvn clean
install comman
Carrying over my +1 binding from Fury dev list vote.
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 15:46, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> I checked:
> - Checksums and signatures are good
> - LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER are there and look good
> - ASF header is present in expected source files
> - No bin
This is an exciting proposal and I'm really happy to see it, would love to see
it incubate and eventually graduate!
- Jef
On 2024/07/30 17:33:57 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We would like to propose a new project to the ASF incubator: Polaris.
>
> Polaris is a catalog for data l
> On Jul 31, 2024, at 6:56 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I understand your comment, and it's important to me.
>> If it's a concern for you, I'm happy to rework the initial committer
>> list with the team (also removing PPMC list to use the default layout)
>> and grow the PPMC/committe
Hi Justin,
> In short, this seems to me (and I could be wrong) like a project mostly from
> a single vendor, but the proposal has been made to make it look like more
> people are involved. It may well be that these people will be involved, but
> I’d prefer if the project was upfront about this
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your message.
I'm a bit confused now: it seems that we have a consensus that the
Polaris proposal is solid and correct (according to the number of
positive feedback in this discussion so far).
Justin expressed concerns, asking to update the proposal. As said, I
understand the
5 mentors are awesome! Excited to see this kind of support.
Cheers,
Wangda
On 2024/08/01 13:21:09 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi Wangda,
>
> Thanks for your message and your proposal. Now, we already have 5
> mentors on the proposal. For good execution/mentoring, I think it's
> largely enoug
+1 （non-binding）
[x] Download links are valid.
[x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[x] Source code distributions have correct names matching the current
release.
[x] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each Answer repo.
[x] All files have license headers if necessary.
[x]
+1 (binding) from me, and I checked the following items:
- [X] Download links are valid.
- [X] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
- [X] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
- [X] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for the repository.
- [X] All files have l
Hi,
My issue is not that this is a single-vendor project or that people have been
recognised for non-code contributions - both are fine. I would suggest that the
project slims down the initial committer list and not split it into PPMC and
committers. As part of the incubating process, you can v
> On Aug 1, 2024, at 7:23 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My issue is not that this is a single-vendor project or that people have been
> recognised for non-code contributions - both are fine. I would suggest that
> the project slims down the initial committer list and not split it int
Hi Justin,
Thanks, it's clearer to me now. I updated the proposal according to
your comments:
- using only "Initial Committers" instead of the split between PPMC
members and committers
- slim down from 18 to 8 names
I give more time to this discussion today, I will move forward to a
vote (as prop
Yes, I have published the release guide in the website with the correct link
Check: https://gluten.apache.org/developers/HowToRelease.html
On 2024/08/01 12:02:41 PJ Fanning wrote:
> You don't need to start a new vote, as far as I am concerned.
> With future votes, you should use the correct downlo
Yes, those two KEYS files are identical.
And I am the release manager for this 1.2.0 release, the files will remain
there during the vote.
On 2024/08/01 12:48:20 sebb wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 12:43, Weiting Chen wrote:
> >
> > Ok, got it.
> > So do you suggest to re-send a new vote or we
31 matches
Mail list logo
