Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC3

> On May 5, 2017, at 4:27 AM, sospartan wrote: > > I'll remove whole playground sample app from artifacts innext release. So > #7 would be a problem anymore. > As the gradle wrapper will be removed too. I'll suggest use installed > gradle to create that. These will be put

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)

> On Nov 8, 2016, at 5:06 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM Justin Mclean > wrote: > >>> the ones you're pointing to are the old ones. >> >> So it might be a good idea to point people to the right docs there? >> > >

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)

> of the Apache Geode Project, and to have primary responsibility > for management of the projects within the scope of > responsibility of the Apache Geode Project; and be it further > > RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and > hereby are appointed to

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating) as a TLP

Thanks, updated with notes on RE50. Anthony > On Nov 4, 2016, at 1:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > > On 03/11/2016 19:47, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> Maturity assessment: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Geode+Podling+Maturity+Assessment > > I'd like to see

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating

Justin, thanks for the quick review! Comments inline. > On Oct 21, 2016, at 5:15 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > +1 binding > > I checked: > - files name contain incubating > - signatures and hashes good > - DISCLAIMER exists > - NOTICE and LICENSE have some

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Geode 1.0.0-incubating.M3 released

The Apache Geode team is proud to announce Apache Geode release 1.0.0-incubating.M3. Apache Geode (incubating) is a data management platform that provides a database-like consistency model, reliable transaction processing and a shared-nothing architecture to maintain very low latency performance

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M3 release

The vote passes with 3 binding +1 votes: - Justin Mclean - Roman Shaposhnik - Konstantin Boudnik and no 0 or -1 votes. Thanks to everyone for their review and feedback! Anthony On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:24 PM, William Markito wrote: > > Hello Incubator IPMC, > > This is

Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

As a data point, for Apache Geode we have a detailed release page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Steps We’ve been rotating RM’s for each release and the notes get enhanced each time through the process. Feedback welcome! Thanks, Anthony > On Aug 19, 2016, at 7:33

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M3 release

Thanks for the review Justin! We’d really like to close out this release soon and a few more votes would really help. TIA, Anthony > On Aug 16, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > +1 binding > > For the source release I checked: > - names contain

Preferred name for package distributions

In a recent thread on the dev@geode list [1] the subject of naming for package manager distributions came up, specifically around a Homebrew formula [2] for Apache Geode. Does the ASF provide a recommendation on the preferred format when a project name is used in a technical context? That is,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M2

Thanks for the feedback Justin! > On Apr 19, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > +1 binding > > I checked: > - incubating in name > - signatures correct > - DISCLAIMER exits > - source LICENSE has some minor issues (see below) > - source NOICE is good

Re: MX4J dependency in Geode

Done. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-244 Anthony > On Apr 6, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > Hi, > > I agree with Justin and Bertrand's analysis, but I would also request > that you open a LEGAL Jira requesting that the MX4J license be added

Re: MX4J dependency in Geode

Thanks for the help! Anthony > On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > INAL but this is what I would do: > - Add a pointer (i.e. path to the file) and the copyright owner to the full > text of the license in LICENSE > - Add the notice “This product

MX4J dependency in Geode

I'm working on clearing an issue [1] found during the review for Geode 1.0.0-incubating.M1 [2] (thanks Justin!). We have a bundled source dependency on an MX4J file [3]. The file in question has a license [4] that is similar but different to ASF v1.1 [5]. How should we deal with this license?

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M1

Thanks for clarifying this Justin. Filed GEODE-914 to clean this up. Anthony > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > >> NOTICE contains copyright, commons-io [2] > > It’s my understanding that for an ASF produced product with the name, >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M1

ption: > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException > > *> Building 60% > :gemfire-core:test > 1382 tests completed, 2 failed, 31 > skipped* > > > Not sure if there's something to do about these 2 tests. > > > John > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:32 PM Anthony

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M1

Justin, Thanks for the great feedback! Regarding the NOTICE in the binary distribution: the contents came directly from NOTICE files contained in bundled dependencies included in the distribution. I’m sure I don’t completely understand the requirements yet [1] so thanks for any

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M1

Hi Justin, As I mentioned in my other response, thanks for the great feedback and quick turnaround! I filed JIRA’s based on the issues you noted below. Anthony > On Feb 2, 2016, at 10:06 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > +0.5 for the license issues and unable

[VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M1

Hello, This is a call for a vote on the Apache Geode (incubating) release 1.0.0-incubating.M1. This release candidate, 1.0.0-incubating.M1.RC2, has successfully passed a vote for a release on the geode developer mailing list. Vote thread:

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

Thanks so much for helping to clarify these details. Having just worked through some of these questions I can say I would have definitely benefitted from having this information available. Anthony > On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > >> On Tue,