Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

Haha... I'm no Director any more. Such policy is above my pay grade :-P On Jun 8, 2017 22:20, "Roman Shaposhnik" <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > I recall a company that started to list out each

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

I recall a company that started to list out each of things NOT to do. Item after item after item, to develop a policy. After a few dozen such, one guy piped up, "this is ridiculous" ... It just isn't tractable. So he suggested a simple replacement: Do no evil. On Jun 8, 2017 21:13, "Roman

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

longer resolve, so no HTTP request will be performed, and (certainly) no data will be collected from old/new versions of Apache Ignite. Cheers, Greg Stein Infrastructure Administrator, ASF

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Mynewt podling

n the scope of > responsibility of the Apache Mynewt Project; and be it further > > RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and > hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the > Apache Mynewt Project: > *Justin Mclean” <jmcl...@apache.org> &

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

The Infrastructure team is taking this to the Apache Ignite PMC. This is completely improper. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > If the binaries are built from the released source code I don’t think we > should restrict what the binaries do. The question is

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache Mynewt from podling to TLP

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:37 PM, aditi hilbert wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2017, at 1:37 AM, sebb wrote: > >... > > Please also remove the non-current releases. > > The links to the source? or all reference altogether? Some orgs are still > working with 0.9 version,

Re: Don't forget to un-incubate

Apache Metron, You need to move to a TLP. It has been over a week since the Board meeting, and Infrastructure has not seen any tickets filed to perform your move. I'd suggest stopping your 0.4.0 release and deal with moving to TLP status. Cheers, Greg Stein Infrastructure Administrator, ASF

Re: Incubator Governance Change

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >... > I'm starting to wonder whether the real solution here should be along the > lines > of what a board would do to a TLP if its active PMC shrinks to less > than 3 people. > Oh, that's easy, and has been done

Re: Incubator Governance Change

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > > Your proposal violates foundation policy on releases and is therefore a > > nonstarter. The ipmc isn't empowered to restructure release

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Return Log4cxx to the Logging Services project

(you may want to have INFRA disable commit emails during that push) Cheers, Greg Stein Infrastructure Administrator, ASF

Re: Creating a podli...@incubator.apache.org mailing list

ate that into a daily cron job. Whether the script uses LDAP or pulls podling.xml ... *shrug* If there are any questions/concerns, then please continue here or in the ticket. Cheers, Greg Stein Infrastructure Administrator, ASF [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13823 On Mon, Mar

[jira] [Updated] (INCUBATOR-198) clean up archive.a.o

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-198?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Greg Stein updated INCUBATOR-198: - Priority: Minor (was: Major) > clean up archive.

[jira] [Created] (INCUBATOR-198) clean up archive.a.o

Greg Stein created INCUBATOR-198: Summary: clean up archive.a.o Key: INCUBATOR-198 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-198 Project: Incubator Issue Type: Task

Re: Slack

external tools, to support those communities. But I will state that the ASF will not be standing up a chat tool. We have a HipChat open source community license available, and will provide Rooms for any project that needs one. And that means we don't have to maintain it. Cheers, Greg Stein

Re: Slack support?

Infra resources are limited, so we can't/won't stand up duplicate services. And even better when they can be outsourced (like HipChat, and increasingly GitHub). Cheers, Greg Stein Infrastructure Administrator, ASF

Re: GitHub workflows?

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: >... > So, the questions I would ask are, are all those comments making it to the > list? And are the podling participants showing through their actions that > they understand inclusiveness, by ensuring that dev

Re: LDAP changes to support podlings

I agree with Felix that too many confirmations exist in the workflow right now, but it worked great. And I was able to correct some missing people on the mynewt PPMC. Yay! On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote: > Hi Sam > > Like this very much. Thanks ! >

Re: [DISCUSS] publishing docker image for podling

Putting my Infra hat back on: the IPMC needs to specify a policy on allowance and naming around hub.docker.com hosting, that Infra will use to assist podlings. Cheers, Greg Stein Infrastructure Administrator, ASF On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

Below, explains my own views on the version string (and other labels and points to mention "-incubating"), and is why I gave a +1 to John's vote. Less invasion. Re: package names. Apache Subversion introduced new org.apache packages in its new release, and left it's old org.tigris packages

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

+1 (binding) On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:22 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change. Current guide at [1] > indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating) in > the version string of maven artifacts. Its

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Mynewt 1.0.0-b1-incubating-rc2

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Christopher Collins wrote: >... > The release candidate to be voted on is available at: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mynewt/ > apache-mynewt-1.0.0-b1-incubating/rc2/ >... > The vote is open for at least 72 hours and

Re: Trademark registration

Podlings are not part of the Foundation (yet), so cannot get trademark registrations. The Trademark/Brand peeps will assist with looking at the future possibility, post-graduation. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On 30 November 2016 at 09:51, Ian

Re: Incoming Website Changes

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 4:06 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 4:57 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:26 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > wrote: >

Re: Clarification of Mentors from Proposal Guide

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >... > I suggest replacing both paragraphs that you list by this, or a > refined variant of it: > > "Three Mentors gives a quorum and allows a Podling more autonomy, so the > current > consensus is that three

Re: Incoming Website Changes

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:26 AM, John D. Ament wrote: >... > Graduation Guide http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html > > Added a link to the Maturity Model as a step to follow for graduation. > There has been past controversy on including that as a graduation

Re: [DISCUSS] Concur for Apache Incubator

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:43 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:40 AM Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > wrote: > > > Hi Jitendra, > > > > > > I gonna take

Re: [FINAL] Incubator PMC Board Report - November 2016

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >... > It just comes from my own experience of serving as an Incubator VP a few > years ago. What I used to do is to add proposed resolutions to the: >foundation/board/board_agenda_.txt > when they came.

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote: >... > > As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see > > podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors. > > That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the >

Re: [DISCUSS] Policy Question: GA for GitHub for Podlings

<mattm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now > has > > requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra > > Admin > > has OK’ed this for OpenWhi

Re: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ Incubation Proposal

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, John D. Ament wrote: >... > I'm still a bit leary about the "relationship with other apache products" > section still. I'm not interested in seeing how a podling competes with > other projects Apache projects don't "compete" with

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenWhisk Proposal

ent to do, we have risks that we can't do what is needed, etc etc. If OpenWhisk reaches a discussion about graduation, and Infra has not completed such work, then the OpenWhisk community will have a decision on wait or shift their development focal point. Cheers, Greg Stein Infrastructure Admini

Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > The problem with github is that we (ASF) cannot give any guarantees if the > main stuff doesn't originate from our own hardware. > Git repositories are effectively cryptographically-signed (weak/strong,

Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Attached to this message is a proposed new project - Apache OpenWhisk. > > The text of the proposal is included below. Additionally, the proposal is > in draft form on the Wiki, where we will make any

Re: [EXAMPLE] bootstrapping (was: Apache Example project?)

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Keith Turner wrote: >... > Nothing new to add, just want to reinforce how much of an impediment > this is. Not being able to utilize GH labels and milestones is really > suboptimal for coordination and planning purposes. Can't mark issue > as

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

On Sep 29, 2016 19:22, "P. Taylor Goetz" wrote: >... > They can block a move to the ASF, but they can’t block a fork of the project moving elsewhere. Strong communities will regroup and live on. DataStax' reluctance to allow it could very easily be interpreted as a rejection of

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

-1 (binding) See other-thread from Jason at DataStax. This would be considered a hostile fork, and as Bertrand noted, the ASF does not want to accept such. On Sep 28, 2016 21:02, "Henry Saputra" wrote: > Hi All, > > Please find below a proposal for a new incubator

Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: >... > One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven > repository > more than we used to. If I understand correctly while the Maven central is > operated by Sonatype, it is just "leased" to

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:12 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > +1 (binding) > > -Taylor > > On Sep 27, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > > This vote will run for at least 72 hours. Please VOTE as follows > [] +1 Accept NetBeans into the Apache

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > >... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being > fully > > aware of an increased load... > > And

Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a > graduation goal, not a start incubation goal. > Agreed, with both my IPMC and InfraAdmin "hats" on my head. I see these issues having time

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: >... > scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and > this will not be new for Apache in any way. > Yeup. The most obvious example being repo.maven.apache.org pointing to

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Emilian Bold wrote: >... > alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have > a policy against ads, etc, etc) > We never run ads. Ever. Just hang on a day or two, for us to *really* review these costs. Look at

new Infrastructure Administrator (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans ...)

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > Greg, > many people on this list are probably unaware that your role changed a > couple of days ago... > Oh. Heh. Fair point! Niclas is referring to this: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:5

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga > wrote: > >...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this stage. :-) > > Correct ;-) > > FWIW I've seen an

Re: [discuss] Move podling rosters to LDAP

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > cc += gstein > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes > wrote: > > Did this conclude..? Just in case it didn't, here's my +1 as well to > > make podling membership be in proper LDAP

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Can we be specific about what info is needed, or what further details > specifically, before going into a vote for acceptance of the proposal? My > concern is that each question we answer

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: >... > >> I think the question is more along the lines of what else would be > >> required to produce a "canonical" > >> release of Apache Netbeans. If everything that is required is being > >> donated -- I think we're

Re: SVN Change?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:06 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> >> wrote: >> >&

Re: SVN Change?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:06 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, John D. Ament > > wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:02 AM Marvin

Re: SVN Change?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:02 AM Marvin Humphrey > > wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 7:21 AM, John

Re: Number of projects in Incubation [was: [VOTE] Release Apache Mynewt 0.9.0-incubating-rc1]

Yeah... kind of hard for me to vote while I was on vacation last week. Didn't happen, but that is not a problem. As Justin notes, our job is to *mentor* ... that doesn't mean we are obligated to vote. Voting on a release implies a large commitment to downloading the tarball, building, deploying,

Re: Hosting links to pre-Apache releases

Sorry... I missed this last week. Apache Subversion did not move old releases onto ASF hardware until after we graduated. At that point, we moved them directly onto archive.a.o/dist/subversion. They are not ASF releases, but they are useful from an archival standpoint. We certainly had an

Re: Final report?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >... > > To be clear: it was emailed to the Board on Feb 28. ... so we technically > > "have" it.

Re: Final report?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > * Graduations > > > > The board has motions for the following: > > > > - Sentry > > Not... yet. :-) > > Does somebody intend to post

Re: Final report?

gt; > Commons RDF meets potential user requirements and expectations > > towards > > > next versions of the Commons API. > > > 3. Find lateral target goals that could make the project viable. > > > > > > Any issues that the Incubator PMC

Re: Possible ASF Incubator Project transfer..

To be clear, we are talking about: http://www.apache.org/licenses/#grants On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Reza Rahman wrote: > Yep, understood. We will give it an honest effort. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Mar 3, 2016, at 6:30 PM, John D. Ament

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a disclaimer in the release notes. The Incubator process is about tracking these down, and getting them fixed. Incubation releases are not expected to be *fully* conformant to all ASF policies, especially if there is a known

Re: [VOTE] Accept Beam into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > the Beam proposal (initially Dataflow) was proposed last week. > > The complete discussion thread is available here: > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Dataflow Incubator Proposal

As a regular english word, "beam" cannot be trademarked, by others/us. Yet the *pair* of words, "Apache Beam" can be implicitly/explicitly trademarked. On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 1/28/16, 3:26 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré"

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Dataflow Incubator Proposal

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As a regular english word, "beam" cannot be trademarked, by others/us. > > Like Windows® or Apple®?

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Guacamole Incubator Proposal

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Michael Jumper wrote: >... > == Background == > > Guacamole began in 2010 as a personal project - a means for Mike Jumper > to access to his own computer from work. Mike’s job at that time had a > firewall which blocked outbound access

Re: Incubation and GSOC

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Markus Geiß wrote: >... > Since we are in incubation now (Apache Fineract), I'm wondering how we > will deal > with this in the future. Is the IPMC supporting GSOC, is it the > responsibility of the > project community, or is Apache in

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache SINGA (incubating) 0.2.0 release

In the future, you MUST include the Incubation Disclaimer in your release announcements. Unfortunately, your announcement email was moderated through, erroneously. Please correct your procedures for your next release. Your download page should also include the disclaimer. Thx, -g On Thu, Jan

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

cess. If you are an global > company like ABB or Schneider then you might want to build your own > industrial scale IoT solution and iota could be at it’s core. > > -Tony > > > On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:18 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > &g

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

Seriously? IoT can simply mean a temperature sensor in your house. No need for a database, let alone something like Hadoop. ... that's just over-engineering. On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Gregory Chase wrote: > I'd recommend a PostgreSQL adaptor, which opens a huge new

Re: Request for advice on code donation

Exactly ... just bring the work into the ASF under its ALv2 license. You don't need permission from (all) contributors to use the software under that license. That's *why* we have licenses! Rewriting the headers is a little trickier, though. I'd suggest a two step process: 1) bring in the code,

Re: Help for the Log4cxx podling

Have no fear, we can extract all history from the svn repo. I don't know what approach you used, such that your IP was auto-banned, but that can be solved. We've done this before. So: please don't worry about that, within this discussion. On Jan 8, 2016 1:11 PM, "Thorsten Schöning"

Re: Help for the Log4cxx podling

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:16 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > ... > Your lack of mentors is probably the biggest issue on the incubator side. > Without mentors, you have no one to steer you through graduation. Though > Marvin raises a good point - you're coming from an existing

Re: [VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator

fit || AL v2 || yes || > >> || Square, Inc. || okhttp || AL v2 || yes || > >> || Stephen Colebourne || Joda-Time || AL v2 || yes || > >> || Szczepan Faber || Mockito || MIT || yes || > >> || Terracotta, Inc || Quartz || AL v2 || yes || > >> || Terracot

Re: [VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator

Andrew Dzakpasu (andrewdzakpasu at musoni dot eu) > * Markus Geiss (mgeiss at mifos dot org) > * Sander van der Heijden (sander at musoni dot eu) > * Ishan Khanna (ishan1604 at gmail dot com) > * Myrle Krantz (mkrantz at mifos dot org) > * Terence Monteiro (terence at sanjosesolutions dot in) > * Adi Nayaran Raju (adi dot raju at confluxtechnologies dot com) > * Gaurav Saini (gsaini at apache dot org) > * Nazeer Hussain Shaik (nazeer dot shaik at confluxtechnologies dot com) > * Michael Vorburger (mike at vorburger dot ch) > > == Affiliations == > > * Vishwas Babu AJ (Conflux Technologies) > * Ed Cable (The Mifos Initiative) > * Andrew Dzakpasu (Musoni Systems) > * Markus Geiss (The Mifos Initiative) > * Sander van der Heijden (Musoni Systems) > * Myrle Krantz (The Mifos Initiative) > * Terence Monteiro (SanJose Foundation) > * Adi Nayaran Raju (Conflux Technologies) > * Nazeer Hussain Shaik (Conflux Technologies) > > == Sponsors == > > === Champion === > > Ross Gardler > > === Nominated Mentors === > * Ross Gardler > * Roman Shaposhnik > * Greg Stein > > === Sponsoring Entity === > Incubator PMC > >

Re: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Markus Geiß wrote: >... > Joining Apache, preparing the proposal, nominating the initial committers, > and agreeing on mentors is a process governed by our community by having a > healthy discussion and finding consensus on all of these things. >

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

; http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > > bdelacre...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51

Re: Impala commit policy

Yeah, this is what I meant earlier. Leaving out a commit policy changes nothing. The same people who put together the proposal will be the same set as those discussing it as a podling, and they will reach the same conclusion. If the PPMC doubles in size, with fresh faces, then a real discussion

Re: Impala commit policy

face and elects for CTR, we > might say "what can we do to limit the risk that RTC inhibits community > growth, without abandoning RTC completely?". At the very least, the > community becomes aware of the concerns, and more sensitive to their > potential impact. > > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Tony Faustini wrote: >... > This is the exact codebase that we would migrate to the Apache foundation. > > Upon entering Apache, Tempo will migrate to an Apache License 2.0 with > all contributions licensed to the Apache Foundation. In certain

Re: Impala commit policy

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or > Kudu, and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted to > stand up for “states' rights”, the right of podlings and projects to >

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote: > > ... > > Binding -1s (4): > > Greg Stein > > Ralph Goers > > Roman Shaposh

Re: [DISCUSS] Metron incubator proposal

RIght. That's why I call it "opt-out" rather than opt-in. If there is no active community to opt out, then I see no problem with us picking up the codebase and (re)forming a community around it. With ALv2 licensing on the codebase, I believe we have most of the rights we need, but will continue

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > Greg, > > May I suggest a compromise? Enter incubation with no explicit commit > policy and let the community choose a commit policy if and when they see > fit. > The community already discussed it and made a choice. They'll

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: >... > On 1 December 2015 at 14:46, Daniel Gruno wrote: > >... > > Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether > > consensus is required or not - or at least none that I could

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: >... > As far as I can tell from the proposals and DISCUSS, RTC was the process > already present in the community proposed. If the -1 folks would like to > convince the community to change its approach then they should take

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: >... > It's great that Greg and the others who disagree cast their dissenting > votes. That doesn't mean that we should throw out process. If the process > is 3x+1 and more +1 than -1, this vote passes as Henry stated.

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I concur. Chris' email is very insightful, and very well written. It is great food for thought, for each workflow approach. Thanks, Chris. ... food.. thx... Happy Thanksgiving! -g On Nov 26, 2015 4:28 AM, "Steve Loughran" wrote: > > This is really good essay on the

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Harbs wrote: >... > So technically, the review is after the commit (to a central staging > repo), but it’s mandatory before the commit is officially accepted and will > be checked out from the (central approved) repo. It’s an interesting >

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Nov 25, 2015, at 4:08 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > I don't think Git is particularly empowering RTC - there's nothing in it that > requires someone to look over one's shoulder. On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Harbs wrote: > AIUI, there’s two ways

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Don't shut down trunk/master for product development. > > I don't believe you heard my point, but I'm not g

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

at 2:44 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > What about commit to feature/bug brach, review and then commit to main > branch? > > Is that CTR or RTC in your book? > > On Nov 25, 2015, at 10:42 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I obje

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >... > > and inherited the RTC ethic from our parent community. I did recently test > the state of consensus on RTC vs CTR there and it still holds. I think this > model makes sense for HBase, which is a mature (read:

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I think this is a distraction. You said it best the other day: RTC implies the need for "permission" before making a change to the codebase. Committers are not trusted to make a judgement on whether a change should be made. CTR trusts committers to use their judgement. RTC distrusts committers,

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Over the 17 years I've been around Apache, every single time I've seen > > somebody attempt to justify someth

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

back to control. Always. -g On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have to completely disagree and find your assertion vaguely offensive. > > > On Nov 25, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" > wrote: > > >Alex, > > > >Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that > >authors don’t want us to have. So far, we haven’t

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

-1 (binding). I'd like to see the community start with CTR, rather than mandatory reviews via gerrit. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

-1 (binding) Starting with RTC is a poor way to attract new community members. I'd like to see this community use CTR instead of mandating gerrit reviews. (ref: other-threads about lack of trust, and control issues; poor basis for a community) On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Todd Lipcon

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

g Sentry...) > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Personally, I am saying RTC is destructive, and am willing to give > > every podling that message. > > Delivering that message by informing podlings of your experien

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > I don't have incubator stats... nor do I have a good way to measure "most > active" or "most successful" projects in the ASF (seems that itself could > be a 'centithread'-worthy discussion). But a potential proxy

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Harbs wrote: >... > FWIW, I personally could swallow using RTC with Git, but I would seriously > have problems with RTC with SVN. > I read this as "RTC sucks, but at least Git makes it suck less." :-) (and yes, Git's features naturally

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Reynold Xin wrote: > Most non-trivial software projects I worked on (paid or un-paid) have RTC > culture. I cannot represent every single project, but in the ones that I'm > closely involved with that use RTC, it is simply part of the culture

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Nobody is forcing anything. > > > > Personally, I am saying RTC is destructive, and am willing

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >