On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:57 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > Mentor here catching up on things here after being offline for a week... > > Wow. This rather blew up! A couple of things I wanted to say, in > addition to an ACK that this mentor is paying attention (as much as the > email backlog is caught up, anyways). > > - I think there is a very fair point brought up by Craig/Justin/John at > the gray line between "Apache Fluo" and "fluo.io". However, I will say > that I do *not* think this is remotely close to the level that we've > seen in other TLPs as of late (will avoid explicit finger-pointing). > That said, I think the outcome that the PPMC has came to on their own as > next steps is healthy (see dev@fluo list). I also plan to address why > some of these software tools which were developed in tandem with Fluo > (pre-Apache) were not included with the original incubation proposal (I > hadn't realized they were listed on the website as they were). I would > venture most are unintentional omissions as the website came verbatim > from pre-Apache fluo. The podling has already been responsive to my > nit-picks on ASF and Incubator branding requests that I put forth to them. >
You have to remember, the incubator is focused on getting projects ready for TLP. These issues tend to become more noticeable. > > - One thing that initially worried me is that a software release was > being -1'd over podling branding (the later concession to separate the > topics did make me happy). Proper branding for podlings, especially ones > that have a pre-Apache life, is obviously tricky to do well and cycles > of the review are inevitable. However, given how difficult creating > properly-licensed ASF releases is, should branding concerns be lumped > into release votes? Is there another mechanism by which we as IPMC can > give feedback to podlings at a time which they are not already stressed > trying to make a software release? > There's certain things that block graduation, and things that block releases. As far as I'm concerned, branding issues did not block this release. Also please note that -1's on releases aren't vetoes. If you get enough +1's it'll pass. An issue where pre-apache releases were not properly labeled on the podlings the website caused me to vote a -1. Granted, the issue turned into a branding problem. Upon closer inspection, looking at fluo, their readme raised a few red flags from my point of view. I was trying to figure out when they went for a full release (not just a pom file) what was going to be involved. Upon looking at https://github.com/apache/incubator-fluo/blob/master/README.md I incorrectly got the impression that the only way to use fluo was to use tools not developed at the ASF. This is a big red flag. This turned into a really bad discussion over the use of fluo.io. > > I'm reminded of John's > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BrandingAuditJune2016 which was a > great high-level insight across podlings. Are branding-audits something > that mentors could drive with their PPMC directly with shepherds/IPMC > bringing their concerns directly to the PPMC/metnors (to avoid licensing > becoming entangled with branding)? IPMC would obviously still have the > ability to escalate things in very heinous situations, but -1'ing > releases for website issues doesn't sit right with me presently (I'm > happy to be taught otherwise, too). > Yes, I would love to see mentors push their podlings forward, and perhaps even maintain this going forward. > > - Josh > > Christopher wrote: > > Consider this vote canceled, until we can work through some of the issues > > identified in the thread. > > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 2:14 PM Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> In preparation for a 1.0.0-incubating release of Fluo, the Fluo team is > >> first separately releasing a parent POM. This release passed a PPMC > vote on > >> the Fluo dev@ list here: > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2f801cc81b7eab1f3438da23d8973626755a77e9038f80cce2b30ae9@%3Cdev.fluo.apache.org%3E > >> > >> Please consider the following candidate for Fluo Parent POM > 1-incubating. > >> > >> Git Commit: > >> (https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-fluo.git) > >> e9ed4334dd4cc5df27def417f26d6d7362470cb8 > >> Branch: > >> fluo-parent-1-rc2 > >> > >> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using: > >> git tag -f -m 'Apache Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating' -s > >> rel/fluo-parent-1-incubating e9ed4334dd4cc5df27def417f26d6d7362470cb8 > >> > >> Staging repo: > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1003 > >> Source (official release artifact): > >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1003/org/apache/fluo/fluo-parent/1-incubating/fluo-parent-1-incubating-source-release.tar.gz > >> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a > >> given artifact.) > >> > >> Signing key fingerprint is: 8CC4F8A2B29C2B040F2B835D6F0CDAE700B6899D > >> > >> Please vote one of: > >> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept... > >> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against... > >> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept... > >> ... these artifacts as the 1-incubating release of Apache Fluo Parent > POM. > >> > >> This vote will end on Tue Aug 02 18:30:00 UTC 2016 > >> (Tue Aug 02 14:30:00 EDT 2016 / Tue Aug 02 11:30:00 PDT 2016) > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with > >> wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \ > >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1003/ > >> # note the trailing slash is needed > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
