On 10/3/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/2/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden
> > > > style reviewer role.
> > >
> > > When it come
On 10/3/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/2/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden
> > > > style reviewer role.
> > >
> > > When it come
On 10/2/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/2/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden
> > > style reviewer role.
> >
> > When it comes to legal issues related to a release, the warden role is
> th
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 12:26, Kevan Miller wrote:
> IIUC, the external dependencies of an incubating project need not
> strictly conform to Apache policy. For instance, a project may enter
> incubation with dependencies on artifacts that have an excluded
> license (http://people.apache.
On Oct 2, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On 9/28/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007 17:12, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On 9/28/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What we care about is that podlings get the "legal stuff" right,
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On 10/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> the responsibility for the release rests with those IPMCers who vote in
>>> favour
>> Correction, the responsibility rests with the Foundation once three
>> IPMC'ers have
On 10/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> >
> > the responsibility for the release rests with those IPMCers who vote in
> > favour
>
> Correction, the responsibility rests with the Foundation once three
> IPMC'ers have voted in favor and the relea
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> the responsibility for the release rests with those IPMCers who vote in favour
Correction, the responsibility rests with the Foundation once three
IPMC'ers have voted in favor and the release vote passed.
--
On 10/2/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden
> > style reviewer role.
>
> When it comes to legal issues related to a release, the warden role is the
> more appropriate. It benefits neither the project nor the ASF if we ar
On 9/28/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 28 September 2007 17:12, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> > On 9/28/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What we care about is that podlings get the "legal stuff" right, and
> > > letting releases out without this being o
> i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden
> style reviewer role.
When it comes to legal issues related to a release, the warden role is the
more appropriate. It benefits neither the project nor the ASF if we are lax
in that regard.
Some of the things that they need to do a
On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 9/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...So I'm wondering if as podling releases are not endorsed by the
ASF and if
the "incubating" and the disclaimer text is everywhere as required
then
could we be a little more lenient?
On Friday 28 September 2007 17:12, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> On 9/28/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What we care about is that podlings get the "legal stuff" right, and
> > letting releases out without this being ok is not an option, due to
> > potential legal risks.
>
> I th
On 9/28/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/28/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What we care about is that podlings get the "legal stuff" right, and
> > letting releases out without this being ok is not an option, due to
> > potential legal risks.
>
> I
On 9/28/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Friday 28 September 2007 16:16, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > IMHO the incubator PMC doesn't care much about technical issues in
> > podling releases, at least for early releases.
>
> This is an important observation. The reviewers has n
On Friday 28 September 2007 16:16, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> IMHO the incubator PMC doesn't care much about technical issues in
> podling releases, at least for early releases.
This is an important observation. The reviewers has no opportunity to figure
out if the release at all work. That is
On 9/28/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What we care about is that podlings get the "legal stuff" right, and
> letting releases out without this being ok is not an option, due to
> potential legal risks.
I thought projects in incubator were not endorsed by the ASF, hence
the
On Friday 28 September 2007 15:40, ant elder wrote:
> Anyway, so i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden
> style reviewer role.
*My* worry is that quality will drop if there is no expectations.
So we could turn this around and say; What are the expectations from the I PMC
On 9/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...So I'm wondering if as podling releases are not endorsed by the ASF and if
> the "incubating" and the disclaimer text is everywhere as required then
> could we be a little more lenient? Maybe just note any issues so they can be
> fixed in the n
On 9/28/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Friday 28 September 2007 05:12, Yoav Shapira wrote:
>
> > Personally, that's my take on it, and what I've done historically.
>
> I agree with Yoav, but would like to add that I personally have different
> standards for different podlings,
On Friday 28 September 2007 05:12, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Personally, that's my take on it, and what I've done historically.
I agree with Yoav, but would like to add that I personally have different
standards for different podlings, i.e.
- The sooner one can expect graduation -> higher bar.
-
Hey,
On 9/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are people thoughts on how strict reviews should be when saying an
> issue is serious enough to block a podling release?
This is somewhat subjective, which is not bad in my book. We're all
trying to balance at least two serious conside
22 matches
Mail list logo
