On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
...As discussed during the Callback proposal phase [1], the podling
community wasn't too certain about the Callback name and thus after
some discussion they recently voted [2] on adopting the new name
Apache Cordova.
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:48 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On a related matter, how is the rename being handled for the various
incubator data files, web-pages, mailing lists etc.?
We're still working on that, but I suppose we'll be leaving pointers
from old callback locations to new
This is an incubator release for Apache MRUnit, version 0.8.0-incubating.
It fixes the following issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311292version=12316359
*** Please download, test and vote by [3 working days after sending].
Note that we are voting upon
I'm one of the main committers on Isis.
I'm +1 on Mark's ideas here, and we have several ideas to better position
Isis within the JEE landscape.
Related to the discussion, we're working on our next release 0.2.0 which
will also improve our website and marketing. We're also kicking off having
at
On 10 January 2012 10:13, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:48 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On a related matter, how is the rename being handled for the various
incubator data files, web-pages, mailing lists etc.?
We're still working on that, but
On Jan 8, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
Should smaller incubator projects be encouraged to graduate as
sub-projects of existing projects or is that not an option anymore?
Specifically, I was thinking about Amber, which might just work as a
sub-project of Apache Shiro if they are
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 9, 2012 10:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
And, no, the discussion has not been with the Trac community -- it was
in private with a few individuals; as far as Apache is concerned,
it never happened.
And Oracle's
On 10 January 2012 06:09, Eric Yang eric...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Chukwa 0.5.0 is ready for release. This will be the first incubator
release for Chukwa.
The source tarball artifact is available at:
http://people.apache.org/~eyang/chukwa-0.5.0-rc3/
Documents are available at:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot anyways.
There have been tons of long emails on this proposal and i haven't
read them all so am a little lost on whats going on, but
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
The VOTE was based on misleading information. The Incubator PMC should
declare it
void and request a new proposal. The existing Bloodhound podling should be
placed on hold until this is sorted out.
What is the status
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Devin Han wrote:
The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of votes
(3 +1).
Looks good to me, I'm +1 to the release (IPMC binding)
Nick
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Jan 10, 2012 9:30 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot
anyways.
There have been tons of long emails on this proposal and i haven't
read them all
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has already
started. The Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new non-fork
plan and are executing on that now, on the bloodhound-dev mailing list
For
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has already
started. The Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:20, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has
Hi All,
+1 from me too (binding):
Sigs verified:
[mattmann@snow odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-rc7]$ curl -O
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/odftoolkit/KEYS
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total
On 1/10/2012 6:40 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot anyways.
I believe the point was to settle the issue so that we don't have to
deal with this situation again.
Roy
That was the
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each
other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its maddening.
I'm actually not seeing much in the way of contradiction in discussion
of
On 1/10/2012 2:20 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
I'm actually not seeing much in the way of contradiction in discussion
of the policy.
The letter seems to be: Apache projects don't import and incorporate
code without the owners' consent. License to use is not synonymous
with consent to
Folks, a big sorry, but I think we hit a road blocker because we need to
rethink our project name.
Bean Validation is just not ok as the spec is already named that way. The
projects PMC will find another name and check it with trademark.
Thanks again to sebb, jukka and all others for their
I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just
to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might
be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments
from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor
signoff section to
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each
other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its maddening.
I see no indication of this escalating into a board issue, so I don't
I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed
to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of
it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my
responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer
that mentors showed their
Whilst I agree there is value in demonstrating a starting podling what a good
report should look like by doing it for them, I also strongly believe in
learning by doing, so I would still propose that a podling has a go at it
themselves, before having a mentor step in. In the end, this is also a
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each
other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its
On 1/10/2012 4:04 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Greg both acquiesced in picking another plan while at the same time he
did not retreat from the position that there is no set Foundation
policy here. Roy takes a strong and continuing line that there is one.
So I personally wish that the board
The thing is there is no way to tell whether or not a mentor is
even CAPABLE of writing a status report for a podling if the podling
is immediately tasked with doing so themselves. We are in the boat
we are in now because we have for too long assumed any member who
offered to mentor a podling was
On 1/10/2012 3:50 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
The IPMC is perfectly capable (in its own sometimes messy way) to deal
with this issue. In fact the board has explicitly delegated the
responsibility of acceptance and oversight of new products submitted
or proposed to become part of the Foundation
I see your point. I still think that if you read a bad report it does not
matter who wrote it, in the end you can still blame the mentors because it's
their responsibility. Who wrote it is not that relevant to me.
On Jan 10, 2012, at 23:10 , Joe Schaefer wrote:
The thing is there is no way to
It's not about blame, it's about tangible, recorded demonstrations of
oversight. As I said elsewhere we place no conditions on mentors
when they sign up to mentor a podling, and I think that is part
of the problem we face here. A podling will be able to report about
a poor report from a mentor
I'm not worried about a mentor that can't write a decent report. I want a
podling that can write a decent report. I'm much more worried when the mentor
can't prod the podling to write a report, and doesn't review it or sign it when
they do. If the podling submits a poor report that is
Let's stop discussing this issue in the abstract then and take
a look at the current set of reports. Of the ones with signatures
of mentors, I see very little to gripe about- the topics and subjects
are mostly relevant to the podling's progress towards graduation.
Now lets look at the
On 9 January 2012 23:52, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote:
This is an incubator release for Apache MRUnit, version 0.8.0-incubating.
It fixes the following issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311292version=12316359
*** Please download, test and
UNSIGNED JANUARY REPORTS:
Bloodhound
Callback
Celix
Chukwa
Deft
HISE
JSPWiki
Kato
Kitty
Mesos
Openmeetings
Tashi
VXQuery
- Original Message -
From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday,
Hi Sebb,
There have indeed been some changes. This is something that IMHO
can be updated on the next release. I've filed a JIRA issue to track it.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-52
And will fix it.
Cheers,
Chris
On Jan 10, 2012, at 6:06 PM, sebb wrote:
On 9 January 2012
I like Joe's suggestion of having Mentors writing a report. But I
would like the PPMC get some experience as well, since once they
graduate they are tossed into the fire of producing real board
reports on their own.
Possible extension of Joe's suggestion; The PPMC produce the Board
report as if
+1 to graduate. This is a project in a fierce space as Martijn noted,
and I think incubating is hampering its attractiveness. It will
become a swim or sink challenge as TLP, but doubt the forecast is any
better of staying here.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:39 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 22:59, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
...
This sounds more and more like an example of Fascination of the
Apache brand, as a lever for commercial interest.
I agree with Roy that this is bad taste, and I wish WANdisco simply
makes a commercial derivative, OR
On Jan 11, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
UNSIGNED JANUARY REPORTS:
Celix
Celix is late reporting this month because of holidays. A report is being
worked on, written by the PPMC and actively monitored by me. You can expect it
later today.
Greetings, Marcel
39 matches
Mail list logo
