Re: LGPL dependency

uld be unpleasantly surprised. Hen On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:49 AM 申远 wrote: > Hi, > > I am a PPMC member of Apache Weex. After serious reviewing of our > dependencies, I found there some of the source code we copied from Webkit > is actually under LGPL license(Category X) and our li

Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:53 Justin Mclean wrote: > HI, > > > I think that serious = release blocker; > > That would also be my meaning. People / podlings have requested that > release blockers be allowed in podling releases. > > > I'd love to hear some examples. I suspect they are all legal. >

Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:15 Greg Stein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 02:47 Alex Harui wrote: > > > Maybe the next question is: Are all release policy violations > > showstoppers? I suspect the answer is no. And thus, if any TLP can punt > > release policy violations to a future release, >

Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases

"Conceptually what you > describe > > could lead to a situation where a PPMC releases a project fully compliant > > with the ASF's expectations. “ > > I assume you mean “not fully compliant”? > Nope. I was being defensive in my broad statements. For the given question; sure, someone might manage a perfect release someday :) Hen

Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases

rd also confirm that the ASF's legal shield would cover people making releases under this proposal? Are the board lawyers? :) Until you have a well-defined list, I doubt anything could be confirmed. I'd go with: "Conceptually what you describe could lead to a situation where a PPMC rel

Re: Podling releases and release policy

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:53 Greg Stein wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hen wrote: > >... > > > * Incubating releases are Apache releases. > > > > That is demonstrably not true, as (historically) the Incubator has made > releases with GPL'd code i

Re: Podling releases and release policy

that the Apache Way was followed (and PPMCs need chairs). (and we need an entire conference to figure out binary releases) Hen On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:10 AM Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > I think the fact that incubating releases are not official ASF releases > covers this issue. The full effect of the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1.rc0

+1 to the release. I compared to the previous release and shared, on dev@mxnet, a note regarding licensing of datasets (not included in the release but linked from a script). I've suggested that a note on the origin and license be added. Hen On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 8:14 AM Junru Shao wrote

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc3

+1. I reviewed the diff with the RC2 that I approved, no concerns with anything added. Cc'ing other mentors. Hen On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Piyush Ghai wrote: > Dear community, > > This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0, release > candidate RC3. >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

Did you mean: "The rat-exclude configuration on the project _must_ be less permissive." ? (your text suggests it's an option, whereas your vote says it's required) On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 8:08 PM Luciano Resende wrote: > I ran RAT, and while I understand that a lot of the failures are >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

+1. On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:59 PM Steffen Rochel wrote: > Dear community, > > This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0, release > candidate 2 > > Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release. > > Vote thread: > > >

Re: Tying Dockerhub into development and release management

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:43 PM Hen wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:49 PM Justin Mclean > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > 2. The PPMC should not publish software outside of Apache controlled >> locations. >> >> I’m trying to fin

Re: Tying Dockerhub into development and release management

f the PMC and therefore don't have to obey our release policy, just our license and trademark policy - I think that's nuts btw). Hen

Re: Tying Dockerhub into development and release management

ut they must > not > > cause user confusion (i.e. respect trademarks). > > And we have this as well (see docker links). > > All a bit of a mess really. > > Justin Agreed :) I think PMCs are trying to do the right thing for the public and we need to come up with structure for how PMCs should publish installables on 3p locations. Hen >

Re: Tying Dockerhub into development and release management

party, but they should flag that it does not come from Apache and should not treat it as the default user experience. All of which means PPMCs must not use PyPI, NuGet, NPM, DockerHub, etc. unless Infra actively support a mechanism of doing so (which they definitely do for Maven). (Though I'm confused as to whether #2 is a must not, should not, or can if they wish to) Hen

Re: Policy for podling committers on graduation

+1 to automatically carried forward which I suspect is how it’s been handled up to now. On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 4:15 AM sebb wrote: > When a podling graduates, all the people listed on the board > resolution become both PMC members and committers. > > What is the policy for podling committers?

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.1 release RC0

+1. I reviewed the diff between this release and the last. Hen On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Anirudh wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.1, release > candidate RC0. > > Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and ap

Re: Committer/PPMC votes

t (or all?) projects use Consensus voting to add committers (and presumably PMC members too). On most projects using consensus voting for committers/pmc; it feels that it's hard to tell the difference. If there are no -1s, a consensus and majority vote look the same. :) Hen On Thu, Jun 21, 201

Committer/PPMC votes

are the same as for voting for a PMC member or a committer. Ideally there are no -1s, but at the end of the day it’s a majority vote. ie: I think newcommitter.html is buggy. Thoughts? Hen

Re: Retiring legacy git repositories from podling?

+1 to a transfer rather than Attic. On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > Hi, > > The Taverna podling has its code in multiple git repositories > https://taverna.incubator.apache.org/code/ > Most of these were imported from the initial Software Grant > > > The Taverna

Re: Minified Javascript in source releases (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ECharts (incubating) 4.1.0.rc3)

a CDN instead of copying into the distro? On the one hand, one can argue a CDN is bad if someone wants to read offline. On the other, I don't like being added to the security update chain if there is an issue in D3/jQuery/bootstrap etc. Hen

Re: [VOTE] Retire the Slider podling

+1. Kudos to the podling for voting for retirement. The JIRA gives hope that there is user activity, but if the lack of commits and existence of a technical alternative in Hadoop suggests this is a good decision. Hen On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Billie Rinaldi <bil...@apache.org>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC3

cking item in the previous vote. +1. Hen On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Anirudh Subramanian < anirudh2...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0, release > candidate RC3. > As suggested by Justin and Henri, we

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

I'll poke the legal-discuss thread; however why can't we have the build script for the tar.gz start by removing the .md file? On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Anirudh wrote: > Hi Justin, > > We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original > repo,

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

regarding flaky tests/CI fails. Hen On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Anirudh <anirudh2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0, release > candidate RC2. > > Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approv

Re: The role of a mentor

takes us full circle - if what we want are coaches, absent (burnt out?) mentors are no surprise at all. Hen On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:35 AM, <r...@gardler.org> wrote: > +1000 > > I've not been very active in the incubator for some time. I've > participated in these "role o

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

es on the remaining items before graduation) Tempted to throw in these, though feeling more badge-like: * Website complete (brand, security note, link to Foundation etc) * Apache Blogged * Conference presentation * Board report complete, no comments/concerns Hen

Re: apache at bintray

Given there's an asfinfra user there, it seems official. I doubt the infra team would be involved otherwise :) Maybe they have instructions on how to interact with the account? Hen On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was p

Re: [DISCUSS] Absent mentors

activity for podlings at earlier milestones. Hen On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > As for the metric -- I really think that using mentor turnout on release > > voting threads will serve us well. &

Re: 404 issues

ion level traffic. > > > > Cheers, > > Aaron > > > > On Mar 7, 2018 04:13, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> .htaccess support should still work. I would recommend following up > with > >> i

Fwd: 404 issues

Apologies for my rustiness :( Are we still able to manage a mod_rewrite configuration per project, or did that go away? Thanks, Hen -- Forwarded message -- From: Aaron Markham <aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:54 PM Subject: 404 issues

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC1

+1. License change looks good to me. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:28 AM, YiZhi Liu wrote: > Just remind that the voting is ongoing. Please help to verify whether > the release candidate meets the standard and vote accordingly. > > 2018-02-13 23:37 GMT-08:00 YiZhi Liu

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

t the BSD license). I can make the > > required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you think > > this is a blocker for this release? > > Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote differently. > <general-h...@incubator.apache.org> > Agreed. -1 on my part. The LICENSE file is critical and shouldn't get worse. Hen

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

of whitespace on end of NOTICE * Comment added to CODEOWNERS to explain the file so we don't cause community problems * There was a suggestion to simplify the LICENSE to not explicitly list which packages are under each license. Something to consider. Hen On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Chris

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep Fair enough. My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the MXNet package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already being listed then that's a weak argument :) Hen

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

Thanks Justin. Some comments inline on ones I don't think need fixing; but afaict from MXNet dev@ activity the plan is to produce a new release and restart the vote. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > -1 binding due to license, header

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

by a CLA/grant (I counted 400 contributors), so the original Copyright statement is maintained (the enormously ugly 'Copyright Contributors'). Thanks, Hen

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.12.1 release RC0

Sorry for my slowness. +1 from me. On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Sebastian wrote: > +1 binding > > > On 11.11.2017 07:44, Suneel Marthi wrote: > >> +1 binding >> >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Meghna Baijal < >> meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>

Re: Update README for retired podlings?

t important. If we have code in our source control that can't be distributed, it should be deleted (regardless of project). If we have a retired Incubator podling with code that didn't get sufficiently relicensed from another open source license, no big deal (provided that's clear). My vote (unsurprisingly) would be for treating a retired podling the same way a retired project is treated. Hen

Re: PPMC voting new committers

consensus. Hen On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Craig Russell <apache@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to see a change in incubator policy w.r.t. voting new committers. > > While there are no Foundation policies on how to vote new committers, we > do have best practices

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.12.0 release RC0

+1. Noting that Suneel was +1 in the original thread (ie: you have 3 mentor/Incubator-PMC +1s). Hen On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Sebastian <ssc.o...@googlemail.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Successfully built and validated the RC from source. > > Best, > Sebastia

Re: [LAZY] Letting anyone invite on Slack

Done. Anyone on TheAsf slack workspace can invite someone to the workspace. On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 03:28 Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fair enough... then open it up. Not even sure why that's a question :-) > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Hen <bay...@apache.org&g

Re: [LAZY] Letting anyone invite on Slack

While I lean to the 'not seeing the value of Slack', we have many channels on Slack now (mostly driven by Incubator projects I think; John seems to have taken the lead on the workspace), so this isn't a thread for getting rid of slack :) Hen On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Craig Russell