On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> ...The very first line of this thread is a link to an INFRA ticket. A
>> comment on that ticket links to this very thread...
>
>
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...The very first line of this thread is a link to an INFRA ticket. A
> comment on that ticket links to this very thread...
Ok thanks! It would be nice to change the title of that
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> ...Can I just work with the infrastructure team to
>> make this happen? Do we need a formal vote?..
>
> As Marvin explains very
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...Can I just work with the infrastructure team to
> make this happen? Do we need a formal vote?..
As Marvin explains very well I don't think we need a formal vote but
I'd like whatever actions are taken, as well as their
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:51 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:29 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > [...]
> > 3. The interface itself needs to be able to track committers and PPMC
> > members differently. I've created
> >
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> [...]
> 3. The interface itself needs to be able to track committers and PPMC
> members differently. I've created
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WHIMSY-84 to track this need (since
> all committers == all
Sam
Thanks for the long response, sometimes length beats crispness. Some
comments in line, summary of my thoughts towards the end. I will say - I'm
glad that it looks like we're aligned with long term goals.
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 1:42 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sun, Apr
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:09 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 2:23 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> What's the next step? Can I just work with the infrastructure team to
>> make this happen? Do we need a formal vote?
>>
> Can you clarify
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 2:23 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
> What's the next step? Can I just work with the infrastructure team to
> make this happen? Do we need a formal vote?
>
>
Can you clarify what exactly you're going to ask infra to change? I see
that infra has made a gitbox
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> What's the next step? Can I just work with the infrastructure team to
> make this happen? Do we need a formal vote?
In my view there is no need for a vote. This is not covered on the
Incubation_Policy page as far as I
What's the next step? Can I just work with the infrastructure team to
make this happen? Do we need a formal vote?
- Sam Ruby
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Background, from https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13804
>
>> With this feedback and
John, your email confuses me for many reasons.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:57 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> This solution describes one of the many reasons I feel the incubator itself
> is broken. We're trying to rewrite policy, as a means to work around some
> awkward setup
John D. Ament wrote on 4/6/17 6:57 AM:
> This solution describes one of the many reasons I feel the incubator itself
> is broken. We're trying to rewrite policy, as a means to work around some
> awkward setup sitting around, instead of just treating podlings as regular
> projects, with some
Hi
I think this sounds very reasonable.
+1
Regards
Felix
> Am 06.04.2017 um 07:06 schrieb Sam Ruby :
>
> Background, from https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13804
>
>> With this feedback and review, I believe we're still operating as expected.
>>
>> * Per
This solution describes one of the many reasons I feel the incubator itself
is broken. We're trying to rewrite policy, as a means to work around some
awkward setup sitting around, instead of just treating podlings as regular
projects, with some restrictions in place.
Create something in ldap
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...I believe that the alternative is technically feasible: have each podling
> manage a list of committers for that podling:
>
> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/
Which is what they will have to do anyway after
That conclusion sounds pretty scary in isolation.
But if taken along the garden path in small steps, it seems really very
right.
Given that under this proposal any IPMC member could get access to anything
needed, I don't see any particular loss.
Also, with reasonable whimsy tooling, the
Background, from https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13804
With this feedback and review, I believe we're still operating as expected.
* Per current policy, IPMC members have commit privileges on all Incubator
repositories.
* The above is effected through the use of a private GitHub
18 matches
Mail list logo