Re: New website to go with new logo?

On 15.01.2017 15:47, John D. Ament wrote: > So I want to put this out there as an idea I had been toying with. With > our new logo we should launch a new incubator website. Something more > modern looking and easier to maintain. This is in part what I was trying > to do with the git conversion,

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On 18.11.2015 01:35, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 04:50PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >>> ... >>> 1) You're right, I don't trust anybody to make code changes to a complex >>> project with zero oversight. I

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On 10.11.2015 16:00, Pierre Smits wrote: > That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache Software > Foundation with the input from many (both ASF members and others) and > hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying that those 'are not > Foundation'. And that by/through

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On 03.11.2015 09:48, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >> ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC members >> since its inception... > If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry. > > and earlier he

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10.10.2015 14:05, Pierre Smits wrote: > Since we're conducting ASF politics here, you're asserting that you're > corrupt, anti-social and a nutcase? > And the rest of privileged contributors of the ASF as well? Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote? If not, I suggest you go and

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10.10.2015 20:11, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 09:06AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: >> On 10/10/2015 07:51 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >>> We should address perceived, and certainly provable, instances of >>> corruption at the Foundation directly, rather than prescribe policy that

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

On 10.10.2015 09:06, Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 10/10/2015 07:51 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >> We should address perceived, and certainly provable, instances of >> corruption at the Foundation directly, rather than prescribe policy that >> seeks to prevent future instances as if there is a precedent

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Brooklyn graduation as TLP

On 26.09.2015 14:15, Pierre Smits wrote: > Why does the pPMC feel the need to aks the board of the ASF to charge the > TLP to be formed to create set of bylaws? That's just a clause in the template board resolution proposal; most podlings don't need it, but also don't trouble to remove it from

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

On 06.09.2015 19:43, Peter Kelly wrote: > If it’s not possible to write apps using LGPL libraries as part of apache > projects, I expect you did get to read this page: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html It explains why we cannot include code under certain libraries in our releases. It's

Re: apache binary distributions

On 16.08.2015 21:33, Ted Dunning wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project Foo produce a release of Bar, Baz and

Re: Reform of Incubator

On 04.08.2015 18:12, Joe Brockmeier wrote: What about the Ignite thread was unfortunate? That it was a bit heated at times, or just the fact that there was disagreement? I fear that there's too much bias towards +1'ing things even when folks have legitimate concerns. Heated and disagreement

Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)

On 03.08.2015 18:36, Marvin Humphrey wrote: It's not the central Incubator folks like our regular release reviewers and report contributors who invent these extra criteria Sorry but this has to be said: I see folks on this list inventing policy (or rather, confusing opinion and policy) all the

Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)

On 03.08.2015 21:51, Julian Hyde wrote: In my experience incubating Calcite, the “overhead” was mostly the infrastructure and process, not politics. (If you think the incubator is political, you haven’t seen politics…) The process is necessary (mostly) to ensure clean IP. The

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but hey, if it works for them, why fix it? It'll be a fine day when the IPMC starts telling podlings how their development

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 29.07.2015 19:51, Greg Stein wrote: On Jul 29, 2015 12:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:25PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 29.07.2015 19:25, Greg Stein wrote: On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but hey, if it works

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Ignite from the Incubator

of the Apache Ignite Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Ignite Project: Semyon Boikov (sboi...@apache.org) Konstantin Boudnik (c...@apache.org) Branko Čibej (br

Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)

On 26.07.2015 10:56, jan i wrote: On 26 July 2015 at 10:40, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is vote release... Cut that away is a good start in reforming the Incubator… IMO Which provides a valuable service in showing

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Ignite Project: Semyon Boikov (sboi...@apache.org) Konstantin Boudnik (c...@apache.org) Branko Čibej (br...@apache.org) Ognen Duzlevski (mak...@apache.org) Sergey Evdokimov (sevdoki...@apache.org) Alexey

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 00:03, Pierre Smits wrote: And we also have keep in mind that the project not only there for those with privileges. Focus on that subset of the community isn't building healthy, successful projects. This is the second time on this thread that you've implied that there are people

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 04:31, Ted Dunning wrote: There's a bit of an impedance mismatch here, I agree. I insist that Jira is not relevant history. You may or may not claim that, but the fact that issue tracking is required to be on Apache controlled resources indicates a somewhat different result.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 23.07.2015 18:26, Ted Dunning wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits, that seems to be left open ? I am not sure about this one: why there's a concern that people behind commits

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 04:11, Branko Čibej wrote: On 24.07.2015 03:41, Daniel Gruno wrote: On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote: I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that community has already responded to these discussions

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote: I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of the raised concerns. The truth is that so far many Jira discussions have happened on the dev list,

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 03:41, Daniel Gruno wrote: On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote: I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of the raised

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 23.07.2015 23:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: I think it had more caustic properties. Or the correct spelling is cos'tic? I never could tell them apart... Alright, that's enough. From senseless bean-counting to playground fights, this thread is becoming a bit off-putting. -- Brane On Thu,

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 23.07.2015 03:11, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:50AM, jan i wrote: Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be left open ? Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits, that seems to be left open ? I am not sure

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

better come up with some hard data corroborating that. -- Brane Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Branko

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote: Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project, this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that the 37% are actually active, that is). Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 21.07.2015 03:26, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: Thanks for kicking off this discussion, Dmirtiy. As one of the mentors I think this podling is ready to get graduated. The process of indocrInating this group of people into the Apache Way was not always a walk in a park and we had our share of

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

On 29.06.2015 21:42, Pierre Smits wrote: Ladies would be even better. :-) Oh, indeed, but just once I wish I could have a pun go unanswered ... :-P Op maandag 29 juni 2015 heeft Branko Čibej br...@apache.org het volgende geschreven: On 29.06.2015 15:36, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Sun, Jun

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

On 29.06.2015 15:36, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Yakov Zhdanov yzhda...@apache.org wrote: Guys, It's nice to be informal, but we're not just guys. :) Aye; next time, please address mails to laddies and gentlemen. :) -- Brane

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On 25.06.2015 09:17, Jochen Theodorou wrote: Am 24.06.2015 23:32, schrieb Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH): For HTTPd I was referring to the assertion from Justin earlier in this thread FWIW, httpd always had nightly tarballs available for consumption and testing. (though reading that now I wonder

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

) is quite clear on this. However if other IPMC members vote +1 I’ll consider changing my vote. Hi Justin, We already have 2 +1 votes from IPMC members: - Branko Čibej (binding) - Konstantin Boudnik (binding) FWIW, I agree it would be better to generate these files from source if possible

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

On 23.06.2015 17:26, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, Moreover, modules under extdata are test only and are not used anywhere in the project. They are used to test code deployment functionality. Perhaps it would be best to make it clearer that they are used for test data or better still generate

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

On 23.06.2015 21:14, Branko Čibej wrote: The fact that a file is binary, no matter what it's used for, can't be reason for holding back a release. Let me amend that: as long as it doesn't affect the functionality of the product in any way. -- Brane

Incubator web site not updating?

I made some updates to the Ignite status page, built the site locally without errors, checked the updates, committed and published the site through https://cms.apache.org/incubator/publish . But the updates aren't showing up on the public site. I don't know where to look for logs. Any ideas? --

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-calcite-1.3.0-incubating

On 27.05.2015 01:40, Julian Hyde wrote: Hi all, The Calcite community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache Calcite 1.3.0-incubating. Proposal: http://s.apache.org/calcite-1.3-vote Vote result: http://s.apache.org/calcite-1.3-result 4 binding +1 votes 4 non-binding +1

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.1.0 release (RC7)

On 25.05.2015 12:14, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: Hello! The Apache Ignite PPMC has voted to release Apache Ignite 1.1.0-incubating. The vote was based on the release candidate and thread described below. We now request the IPMC to vote on this release. Apache Ignite 1.1.0 release (RC7) has been

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.1.0 release (RC5)

On 20.05.2015 03:09, Branko Čibej wrote: On 20.05.2015 00:44, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, +0 (binding) from me until these 2 issues are resolved. Of course other IPMC members may vote differently. Several bundled files have GPL license headers e.g. ./ipc/shmem/config.guess, ./ipc/shmem

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.1.0 release (RC5)

On 20.05.2015 12:55, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: * There are many, many HTML syntax errors in the javadocs. YZ: Far from being a serious issue. Javadocs can be built without errors and look good in browser. I think this can be addressed with low priority in the background. Well, the maven build

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.1.0 release (RC5)

On 20.05.2015 12:55, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: Brane, given you are busy should we consider extending PPMC vote for 96 hours? Thanks for the consideration, but those other issues are under control now; the usual 72 hours will be fine. -- Brane

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.1.0 release (RC5)

On 19.05.2015 00:42, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, In the source reefs eI notice a LICENSE, LICENSE.txt, NOTICE and NOTICE.txt whose contents don’t match each other. I assume the LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt are the real files to look at? Yes. the LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt appear to be the real

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.1.0 release (RC5)

On 20.05.2015 00:44, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, +0 (binding) from me until these 2 issues are resolved. Of course other IPMC members may vote differently. Several bundled files have GPL license headers e.g. ./ipc/shmem/config.guess, ./ipc/shmem/ltmain.sh etc. While these look like auto

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.1.0 release (RC5)

On 20.05.2015 00:44, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, +0 (binding) from me until these 2 issues are resolved. Of course other IPMC members may vote differently. Several bundled files have GPL license headers e.g. ./ipc/shmem/config.guess, ./ipc/shmem/ltmain.sh etc. While these look like auto

Re: Apache Ignite twitter

On 22.04.2015 08:04, Andrew Bayer wrote: I have to express a concern here - this sort of thing has happened before with the same person on a different ASF account. A pattern is forming. It was not the same person. The only obvious pattern here is Twitter and I'm not going to repeat my views on

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: 8) It would be good to avoid all those RC RCs as it's confusing to have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over. (this might have been pointed out earlier). A

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

On 31.03.2015 17:46, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: 8) It would be good to avoid all those RC RCs as it's confusing to have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release

Re: junior Mentor request advice from senior Mentor.

On 22.03.2015 09:05, jan i wrote: Hi. Sorry could not resist the subject line, but fact is I need a good advice. I know our rulebook about including 3rd party libraries, but rules are open to interpretation, and since I am involved in the development I consider my opinion for biased. In

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

) +1 Sergi Vladykin (PPMC) +1 Semyon Boikov (PPMC) and +1 Konstantin Boudnik (Mentor; binding) +1 Branko Čibej (Mentor; binding) -- Brane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

On 22.03.2015 00:09, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan dsetrak...@apache.org wrote: The new 1.0 release with corrected headers will be submitted for PPMC vote on Monday. Hmm, I'm confused. This is 1.0-RC3. I would ordinarily expect that to become

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

On 22.03.2015 00:02, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan dsetrak...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Is this GPL software bundled or required?

Re: Podling Name Searches

On 25.01.2015 14:08, John D. Ament wrote: All, If a podling had its name and codebase donated from a company, which had already secured rights to the name, The term secured rights is a bit misleading. Even if they have a registered trademark, that's no guarantee that it doesn't infringe on

Re: my pTLP view

; you have a point there. -- Brane On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 25.01.2015 19:16, Andrew Purtell wrote: With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make votes we call binding on matters of their own project. As other people have said, PPMC members

Re: my pTLP view

On 25.01.2015 19:16, Andrew Purtell wrote: With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make votes we call binding on matters of their own project. As other people have said, PPMC members (that are not also IPMC members) do not have binding votes, neither for releases nor for inviting new committers/PPMC

Re: When is an ICLA needed?

On 20.01.2015 17:16, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so under their ICLA. Really? That can't be right: one can't become the author of a change (and therefore can't license it to the ASF) merely by having committed it. That's why

Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??

On 15.01.2015 17:57, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: ...I'll go and kill that cron job then. Woot!... Can you also write a note at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html to indicate that the service is discontinued

Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??

On 15.01.2015 15:08, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:37 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: I just looked at http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html, and I do understand that votes can be open for an extended period of time, but more than 100 days seems excessive:

Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??

On 15.01.2015 15:06, jan i wrote: On 15 January 2015 at 14:58, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 15.01.2015 14:45, Dave wrote: This vote: RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days was cancelled in an email message titled [VOTE][CANCELLED] Release RC4

Re: Open votes that have been open for more than 100 days ??

On 15.01.2015 14:45, Dave wrote: This vote: RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) 2014–09–03 2014–09–02 135 days was cancelled in an email message titled [VOTE][CANCELLED] Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) - CORRECTION The problem here is that the vote tally script does not

Re: What is The Apache Way?

On 08.01.2015 05:30, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Some podlings are graduating w/ no clear understanding of the Apache Way. What is The Apache Way? No one can say. There is no bounded set of expectations that an Apache

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On 07.01.2015 22:45, Henry Saputra wrote: If a mentor asked to stay as PMC after graduation just for the sake of continue mentoring, then I would argue that the podling was not ready for graduation. A graduated TLP inviting the former mentor to the PMC is a different matter, but then the IPMC

Re: proposal: mentor re-boot

On 07.01.2015 18:42, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I’ve written up a more comprehensive proposal that would not only hold mentors accountable but also give them a fair bit of autonomous authority during releases. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal

Re: Git write access for podlings

On 02.01.2015 11:36, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: Apache Commons has already given write access to *all* ASF committers So did Subversion, quite a while ago. If you get rogue commits from someone, the solution is not extra tooling but community management. Even more so in the case of the

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 22.12.2014 17:42, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: Thus, to me, the choice is really about #1 and #3. So perhaps, the path forward is to try #3 first and then, if things don't improve, go all the way to #1. Please let me know what do you think. +1 Sure, we might reduce the number of projects

Re: Votes for git repos - commit id vs tag

On 20.12.2014 07:16, Niclas Hedhman wrote: Tags are at best a convenience, and nothing else. But so are commit id, since in the long-term, GIT may not prevail and the commit id is in effect an internal artifact of Git itself, not the concept of version control systems. Compare how commit

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 19 December 2014 at 18:10, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote: I certainly don't expect that every mentor has their full attention on a podling every month, but I do expect that a podling that cares about its incubation will seek out that mentor sign-off, and that the mentors who have

Re: Mail command to allow marvin emails

On 26.11.2014 10:45, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: I can appreciate that these kind of shortcuts can make it efficient for an experienced moderator, but for incubating projects who are transitioning from infrastructure like Github, Google Groups and yes, even Sourceforge, getting used to the

Re: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Falcon from the Incubator

On 05.11.2014 16:05, Srikanth Sundarrajan wrote: Hi Jan, Venkatesh Seetharam is extremely active on the project, but couldn't vote on this thread, Why not? Are you guys by any chance treating project committers and PPMC members differently? -- Brane

Re: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Falcon from the Incubator

On 05.11.2014 16:32, Srikanth Sundarrajan wrote: Hi Brane, No, He just didn't get to it before the vote was closed. As I had stated in my earlier response, he has already expressed his views on graduation in the earlier discuss thread that preceded the vote. Adding it here for

Re: [DISCUSS] [PROPOSAL] HTrace for Apache Incubator

On 03.11.2014 16:49, Stack wrote: On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Naresh Agarwal naresh.agar...@inmobi.com wrote: Just curious if HTrace is aimed only for Hadoop infrastructure/Hadoop based applications or it can be used in any Java based systems? HTrace's provenance is Hadoop but the only

Re: [DISCUSS] [PROPOSAL] HTrace for Apache Incubator

On 03.11.2014 19:12, Stack wrote: On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 03.11.2014 16:49, Stack wrote: On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Naresh Agarwal naresh.agar...@inmobi.com wrote: Just curious if HTrace is aimed only for Hadoop infrastructure/Hadoop

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

On 21.10.2014 15:55, Harbs wrote: The one thing I see missing from the proposed text is dependencies and installers. Particularly this section: ### Compiled packages ### {#compiled-packages} The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All releases are in the form of the

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

On 21.10.2014 06:34, Alex Harui wrote: What is the piece I’m missing that says we have to vote to update the binary package? Apparently the Flex community believes that convenience binaries need votes. They don't, but aside from that, if you guys are already voting on binary packages, it makes

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On 13.10.2014 16:14, Julian Hyde wrote: For many projects, especially library projects, the convenient binaries that matter most these days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that are deployed to the maven repo. Calcite releases in fact do not currently include a binary tar ball,

Re: svn commit: r1631099 - /incubator/public/trunk/content/projects/ignite.xml

On 12.10.2014 14:24, sebb wrote: On 11 October 2014 20:15, c...@apache.org wrote: Author: cos Date: Sat Oct 11 19:15:17 2014 New Revision: 1631099 URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1631099 Log: Updating Ignite website with initial INFRA task dates Modified:

Re: Committer Voting and Vetos

On 01.10.2014 05:41, Greg Stein wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: To the concrete question, the Subversion project never calls a strict [VOTE] for new committers or PMC

Re: [VOTE] Accept Ignite into the Apache Incubator

On 28.09.2014 02:58, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: I would like to call a vote for accepting Apache Ignite for Apache Incubator. The full proposal is available below. We ask the IPMC to sponsor it, with cos as Champion, and stack, rvs, cos, hsaputra and brane volunteering to be Mentors.

Re: Code Donations and Committer Righs

On 26.09.2014 20:03, jan i wrote: On 26 September 2014 19:23, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: Just like Ross, the following constitutes my personal opinion (that has been formed over the years of maintaining complex code bases written before my time): On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at

Re: [PROPOSAL] Silk as new Incubator project

On 27.09.2014 05:38, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: Hi David. I believe it will be needing a usual place to publish releases Release tarballs go here before the release vote starts: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ignite After the vote passes, they should be moved here:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Grill as new Incubator project

On 23.09.2014 14:37, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: I like Lens indeed. Sooo ... I suppose the PMC chair will be called the Grey Lensman then? :) -- Brane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For

Re: [VOTE] Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating)

On 02.09.2014 15:51, Dave wrote: On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:43 AM, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: So... do you have a 1.0 artifact staged somewhere? I get that it's a rebuild of RC4, but I don't see that release referenced anywhere on your site. The release files are here:

Re: [VOTE] Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) - CORRECTION

On 03.09.2014 05:03, Jake Farrell wrote: Hi John I requested that Dave add the RC tag to better keep track of multiple release candidates and make it easier for testing and not mixing any previous version up accidentally. This is very common and currently done in many TLP's including Thrift,

Re: [VOTE] Release RC4 as Apache Usergrid 1.0 (incubating) - CORRECTION

On 02.09.2014 23:06, Dave wrote: Rats. That directory should not have been included in the release. It is created as part of the build process and the contents are fetched by Bower (similar to how Maven pulls in jars). Thanks for your attention to detail. I will have a new set of release files

Re: Websites, WebApps, and Release Policy

On 26.08.2014 00:24, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, This strikes me very similar to providing access to daily SNAPSHOT binary artifacts. I would argue that labeling it appropriately is all you need. Except that is this case the intended audience of the application is users. Bloodhound has

Re: Package naming for several languages

On 30.01.2014 21:16, Kowalski, Francois-Xavier wrote: My $0.1: stick with the language rather than with the platform: Because it's well-known that API implementations are never platform-specific. :) *-js/ *-objc/ *-cs/ —FiX -Original Message- From: Lewis John Mcgibbney

Please remember to post [CANCEL] notes for cancelled votes

The voting status script relies on them to update its tables. Currently there are a number of votes flagged as out of date: http://people.apache.org/~brane/incubator/votes.html however, many (if not most) of them were actually cancelled, in some cases replaced by another (successful) voting

Re: [PROPOSAL] - Java OffHeap Memory Pool

Is code for this available for review anywhere? -- Brane On 16.04.2013 19:46, serkan özal wrote: Project Name: Jillegal 1. Abstract: GC is one of the time taken operations in Java. GC run anytime, marks, swaps and compacts objects at memory. If there are so many live objects, managing

Re: [VOTE] Apache Onami to become an ASF TLD

On 18.03.2013 11:25, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: Hi, On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: ...in the previous discussions were no objections against the graduation of Apache Onami... Was there a community vote indicating a desire to graduate? This

Re: [VOTE] Apache Onami to become an ASF TLD

On 18.03.2013 11:35, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: Hi Last time I checked the rules it state that, for such votes, the IPMC should be *notified* through general@ This VOTE is not a requirement but is recommended. It is unlikely that IPMC members will vote to approve graduation unless

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Accept Apache Knox Hadoop Gateway Project into the Incubator

Just tagging the [RESULT] onto the subject so that the vote status gets updated. On 24.02.2013 04:36, Devaraj Das wrote: Hi folks, With 10 binding +1 votes, this vote has passed. Thanks to everyone who voted. Devaraj. +1 (binding) On Feb 15, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Devaraj Das wrote: Hi

[RESULT][VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

On 25.02.2013 05:44, Arun C Murthy wrote: Thanks to all who voted. Obviously, I'm +1 (binding) on the proposal. With 14 +1s (10 binding) the vote passes. I'll start the work to get the podling started. thanks, Arun On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: Hi Folks, Thanks

[RESULT][VOTE] Accept Provisionr into the Apache Incubator

On 07.03.2013 08:54, Andrei Savu wrote: Thanks to all who voted! With 18 +1s (10 binding) the vote passes. I'll start the work to get the podling started. Thanks, Andrei On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.comwrote: +1 non-binding Good luck On Sat, Mar

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Bloodhound from Incubator

On 11.03.2013 05:04, Kalle Korhonen wrote: Was the potential trademark conflict discussed somewhere? See http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201212.mbox/%3c50ca29ad.6000...@apache.org%3E- if so, just linking to the discussion is fine. It was discussed on trademarks@; the

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Bloodhound from Incubator

[X] +1 Graduate Apache Bloodhound podling from Apache Incubator -- Brane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Onami-Logging 3.4.0-incubating

On 03.02.2013 21:26, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Just to be clear, in the case of Onami Logging, reviewers are asked to find the right package amongst 8 different source packages in 8 different directories. What do you mean with right? They all are right, because they contain different

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Onami-Logging 3.4.0-incubating

On 04.02.2013 01:05, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: Hi Branko... On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 03.02.2013 21:26, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Just to be clear, in the case of Onami Logging, reviewers are asked to find the right package amongst 8

Re: Incubator voting status page

On 01.02.2013 20:48, sebb wrote: On 1 February 2013 16:29, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 01.02.2013 17:01, sebb wrote: On 1 February 2013 10:29, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 31.01.2013 17:18, Branko Čibej wrote: On 31.01.2013 16:51, Daniel Shahaf wrote: Branko Čibej

Re: Incubator voting status page

On 01.02.2013 18:05, Daniel Shahaf wrote: Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 17:29:45 +0100: I think updating the httpd config is the more realistic option, since it doesn't presume a ssh tunnel between minotaur and the site server. The only supported way to get content to the web

Re: Incubator voting status page

On 02.02.2013 16:29, Daniel Shahaf wrote: Branko Čibej wrote on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 11:01:42 +0100: I'm all for moving this from minotaur to whimsy, and do suggest we whimsy doesn't have the public-arch tree locally. Thanks for reminding me again ... silly me. change the incubator.a.o

  1   2   >