Jun,
hopefully you will get the support you need on your dev list. However,
please do not hesitate to come back to this list if you need clarity. It
may take too many emails and you might need a thick skin, but we will help
in our strange way.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
The Apache Geronimo project has received a contribution which updates a
number of Geronimo dependencies and associated code updates.
The code contributions have been attached to
On 29 November 2011 12:18, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
hopefully you will get the support you need on your dev list. However,
please do not hesitate to come back to this list if you need clarity. It
This is the first incubator release for Apache Accumulo, with the artifacts
versioned as 1.3.5-incubating.
VOTE:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00939.html
RESULT:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg01038.html
SVN source tag:
There has been concerns expressed about accumulation of rules without
pruning. In that spirit, I'd like to find out whether the community
feels that dropping the rule would be better than revising it into
something workable.
The current check [1] is outdated (for example, www.nameprotect.com)
and
+
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Eric Newton eric.new...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the first incubator release for Apache Accumulo, with the artifacts
versioned as 1.3.5-incubating.
VOTE:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00939.html
RESULT:
+1 binding
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Eric Newton eric.new...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the first incubator release for Apache Accumulo, with the artifacts
versioned as 1.3.5-incubating.
VOTE:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00939.html
RESULT:
+1 (binding)
Tommaso
2011/11/29 Eric Newton eric.new...@gmail.com
This is the first incubator release for Apache Accumulo, with the artifacts
versioned as 1.3.5-incubating.
VOTE:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00939.html
RESULT:
On 28 November 2011 19:21, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/28/2011 1:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
That is because, every single time, the RM agreed that the release
was worth re-cutting.
We have been assuming that it is the rule of Apache to cut another RC even
if it
On 28 November 2011 21:17, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, I still have some questions.
1. Alan, this nunit license acknowledgement is missing from the NOTICE file
since RC1 and RC1 had the nunit files.
On 28 November 2011 19:22, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 28, 2011 7:01 PM, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
That is because, every single time, the RM agreed that the release
was worth
As a heads up to the IPMC we wanted to announce that we just started a release
vote[1] on the ace-dev mailing list about ACE 0.8.1-incubator. This release
basically fixes a few issues that came up while running our community
graduation vote [2]. As soon as the vote has been closed, we will call
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
This does seem odd.
This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
cannot be held back by any entity or block of committers.
Martijn
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement, according to
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice which specifically refers
to
On 29 November 2011 16:26, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
This does seem odd.
This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
cannot
On 29 November 2011 16:37, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement, according
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but the next release should fix that.
Agreed.
For some background: Keeping the NOTICE file as lean as possible
(given
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
Are there any consequences for the ASF?
Depends but potentially in some cases, yes.
Robert
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
To users no, to redistributors yes.
Section 4 of ALv2 makes the attribution notices contained within the
NOTICE file mandatory for any downstream
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's
On 11/29/2011 9:52 AM, sebb wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html was just recently revised by
Roy Fielding (ASF Director and founding officer) based on some nonsense
back-channel complaints, and might be worth integrating into incubator
docs.
Would it not be better to integrate the
No committee can take action without a majority on that committee
approving the action. The VP might take action by fiat (they are
given that authority) - I can't imagine that would ever happen
except in consultation with legal-private@ for a legal issue raised
on private@ that impeded that
On 11/29/2011 10:26 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
This does seem odd.
This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
cannot be held back by any entity or
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but
One shortcut that can be taken when a /single file/ must be changed
(and as discussed on the list, that change already has consensus),
would be to roll the next candidate on a shorter 24 approval clock,
provided that everyone had full opportunity to review the candidate,
and that rest of the
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:38 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/29/2011 9:52 AM, sebb wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html was just recently revised by
Roy Fielding (ASF Director and founding officer) based on some nonsense
back-channel complaints, and might
On 11/29/2011 2:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
I've been wondering whether F2F meetups (bootcamps) for the incubator
might be a way forward
Every retreat I've attended - which translates to those in Wicklow -
has included some level of incubator orientation, and some participation
by a
Hi,
The context for this is the discussion here -
http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/29/2011 2:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
I've been wondering whether F2F meetups (bootcamps) for the incubator
might be a way forward
Every retreat I've attended - which translates to those in
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
There's no such thing as a perfect release (all non-trivial software
has
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 29, 2011 10:10 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/29/2011 2:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
I've
Hi!
JBoss, The Apache MyFaces CODI team and CDISource would like to propose the
Apache DeltaSpike project to the Incubator.
We have added the initial proposal to the Wiki[1] and its content is also
included
below for convenience.
There are already a few people who expressed interest in
On 29 November 2011 18:34, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
No committee can take action without a majority on that committee
approving the action. The VP might take action by fiat (they are
given that authority) - I can't imagine that would ever happen
except in consultation
On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The context for this is the discussion here -
http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
We would like to know
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:49:03PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
What we would like to know is if any member
On Nov 29, 2011, at 20:04, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
In my view, it's appropriate to run the votes in parallel if the RM has good
reason to believe that the vote will pass.
Presumably nobody would waste anybody's time calling for a vote when they have
reason to believe it
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen a point to 2) to running serial votes. You need only 3
On 11/29/2011 7:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen a
So, you are saying option 2 is a reasonable choice, given that only the
NOTICE/LICENSE files have changed one line here and there ?
Thanks,
Neha
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
On 11/29/2011 7:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/29/2011
On 11/29/2011 7:50 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
So, you are saying option 2 is a reasonable choice, given that only the
NOTICE/LICENSE files have changed one line here and there ?
Yes, if you let the 72 hour vote run through with a clear message that
it will be rerolled with a short vote.
If
43 matches
Mail list logo
