On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
Thank you, Dave. I consider your statement to override the assertion on
ooo-dev that binaries are part of
Rob: I believe it is rather foolish to argue that Roy is incorrect.
For starters, he wrote the Bylaws, and is well-versed in the intent of this
Foundation. Second, the Foundation policies take precedence over
third-party concepts, so whether you/OSI may define a binary as open source
is wholly
On Aug 20, 2012 5:06 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
...
-1
I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
release:
...
I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to
argue
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur t...@cloudera.com wrote:
Please cast your votes:
[X] +1 Graduate Oozie podling from Apache Incubator
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
+1
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
Hi Folks!
The deltaspike-0.3-incubating vote has internally passed with lots of +1.
We have 2 IPMC +1 so far and like to ask for a tough review from fellow IPMCs.
[+1] all fine, ship it
[+0] I don't care but smells
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Officially, no Apache project has ever, ever, released a binary.
Apache projects have published convenience binaries to accompany their
releases, which have been, by definition, source
Agreed - for the Flex
On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
Thank you, Dave. I consider your statement to override the
[X] +1 Graduate Oozie podling from Apache Incubator
(binding)
Regards,
Arvind Prabhakar
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur t...@cloudera.comwrote:
This is the second call for vote to graduate Oozie podling from Apache
Incubator, comments and suggestions received during the
On 8/21/12 12:03 AM, drew wrote:
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 13:32 -0700, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Per the IPMC's Guide to Successful Graduation [1] this is the
optional, but recommended, community vote for us to express our
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
VOTE with convenience
On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11 million
On 8/21/12 12:52 PM, sebb wrote:
On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
justify this new requirement?
It is not fair to the
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
justify
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
...As one of the active developers I would have a serious problem if we as
project couldn't provide binary releases for our users. And I thought
the ASF is a serious enough institution that can ensure to deliver
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz twgo...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file
I would like to offer a very loud +1 to Bertrand's email.
Here we are on a community graduation vote thread. This sub-discussion
would seem to lead to one of three outcomes:
1) No place new. AOO proceeds out of the incubator operating under the
current regime, and those AOO community members who
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz twgo...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz twgo...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-12?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13438756#comment-13438756
]
Antonio Sanso commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-12:
US Trademark
On 21/08/12 15:24, Rob Weir wrote:
[...]
A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break
them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
Give them 30 minutes. Compare the
On 21 August 2012 14:38, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz twgo...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:
It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
When the option to be fair exists, fair is great!
With regards to my own vote,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
* I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
close, though seemingly
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:
It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
On 8/21/12 5:10 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
* I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz twgo...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file
On Aug 21, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:
It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
When the option to be
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz twgo...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an
The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
has concluded.
The ballot passed.
VOTE TALLY
+1:
IPMC members:
+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski
For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
has concluded.
The ballot passed.
VOTE TALLY
+1:
IPMC members:
+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
On 21.08.2012 17:29, Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz twgo...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough
On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do
Thanks for voting. The vote passes as follows:
+1 (binding): Tom White,
Patrick Hunt
Alan Gates
+1 (non binding): Roman Shaposhnik,
Konstantin Boudnik,
Johnny
34 matches
Mail list logo
