On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> I've got a mostly-done tentative schedule, and I need lots of people to look
> at it.
Looks like my Incubator talk is scheduled to be given on both Day 1 and Day 3.
Yes, it will be so awesome that attendees will demand an encore.
Marvin Humph
I've got a mostly-done tentative schedule, and I need lots of people to
look at it.
http://tm3.org/cfpreview is all of the talks, broken into categories
http://tm3.org/actracks is the proposed schedule
I'm waiting for feedback from the Hadoop/Bigdata folks, and from the
Science folks, so those
On Thursday, 13 February 2014, Joseph Schaefer
wrote:
> Change is hard, we aren't a tiny org and we do have an opinion about how
> things should be done. That's all I'll say about the git stuff.
>
> But let's face reality for a moment- Cordova has averaged one release a
> month for the past seve
Change is hard, we aren't a tiny org and we do have an opinion about how things
should be done. That's all I'll say about the git stuff.
But let's face reality for a moment- Cordova has averaged one release a month
for the past seven months. Why then is a three day window a dealbreaker?
Sent
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:26 AM, jan i wrote:
> Especially for the community track a panel discussion, with a short
> introduction from each panel member could be a lot more lively and thereby
> giving for us all.
>
> The community track is all about our communities, so why not do some of the
> t
Hi Rich!
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> 3) http://tm3.org/actracks/ is days and proposed tracks each day. Now that
> I'm done with #2, I'm moving on to #3, taking the completed tracks and
> populating the actual schedule in #3. From here, we'll have to either add or
> remove
Not sure if it's a mischaracterization. I have the same understanding as
Benson that that many comments on git threads reflected the perception
that git/github are incompatible with ASF. Not the point however.
What I see again is, for the most part, violent agreement that turns
into lengthy th
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:27:17 -0200, Joseph Schaefer
wrote:
On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:23 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Phil Steitz
wrote:
I know this looks old-fashioned, even downright anachronistic to
"push-hourly-from-CI" people; but deciding *what* to r
On 13 February 2014 20:27, Melissa Warnkin wrote:
> :) LOL So, we're NOT in an ideal world?!?!...be still my beating heart!!!
> LOL
>
No, googleDocs is not driven by ApacheOpenOffice, yet :-)
have a nice day.
jan I.
>
> Thanks for all of your help, Kay!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> __
:) LOL So, we're NOT in an ideal world?!?!...be still my beating heart!!! LOL
Thanks for all of your help, Kay!!!
From: Kay Schenk
To: dev@community.apache.org; Melissa Warnkin
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: ApacheCon CFP: Assistance
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2014 11:57 AM, Jan Willem Janssen wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a bit confused as to what the current status is on the track
>> selection for ApacheCon NA. I've seen the proposed tra
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Melissa Warnkin wrote:
> It's a google doc, so the changes should have been saved immediately, no?
>
>
>
Well in an ideal world, yes...I
>
>
>
> From: Kay Schenk
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 13
It's a google doc, so the changes should have been saved immediately, no?
From: Kay Schenk
To: dev@community.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: ApacheCon CFP: Assistance needed
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Rich Bowen wro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/02/14 19:25, David Nalley wrote:
> There are 4 incubator related talks marked as accept - we could
> surely pare one of those down.
I was thinking in the same line. So +1 for rejecting one of those.
- --
Met vriendelijke groeten | Kind regard
On 02/13/2014 01:24 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
Please have a look at http://tm3.org/cfpreview Community tab.
We currently have 19 talks that have been marked as 'Accept' in the CFP
system, and I would like to fit this content into 18 sessio
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2014 08:08 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>> I'm going through the reviewed talks and marking things as "yes" and "no"
>>> in http://tm3.org/cfpreview/ based on their average score.
On 13 February 2014 19:10, Rich Bowen wrote:
> All,
>
> Please have a look at http://tm3.org/cfpreview Community tab.
>
> We currently have 19 talks that have been marked as 'Accept' in the CFP
> system, and I would like to fit this content into 18 sessions. I'd like
> some feedback on what talk
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> All,
>
> Please have a look at http://tm3.org/cfpreview Community tab.
>
> We currently have 19 talks that have been marked as 'Accept' in the CFP
> system, and I would like to fit this content into 18 sessions. I'd like some
> feedback on what
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Please have a look at http://tm3.org/cfpreview Community tab.
>
> We currently have 19 talks that have been marked as 'Accept' in the CFP
> system, and I would like to fit this content into 18 sessions.
My Incubator talk is listed in two trac
All,
Please have a look at http://tm3.org/cfpreview Community tab.
We currently have 19 talks that have been marked as 'Accept' in the CFP
system, and I would like to fit this content into 18 sessions. I'd like
some feedback on what talk we should drop. There's a lot of overlap in
many of the
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>
> That is a mischaracterization of the git story which was always about being
> able to support multiple version control tools. Yes people were concerned
> about the social side but we wouldn't be Apache without that debate.
>
> Same her
On 13 February 2014 04:25, Brian LeRoux wrote:
> I'd like to throw out some thoughts in support of this thinking and help
> explore how we can support faster releases at Apache.
>
> Cordova has bias to shipping. We started shipping on a schedule mid 2011
> and this was a very deliberate choice, af
That is a mischaracterization of the git story which was always about being
able to support multiple version control tools. Yes people were concerned
about the social side but we wouldn't be Apache without that debate.
Same here. All you are seeing is some natural skepticism about the claims
This conversation goes in a circle. I see two positions:
1: Cadence releases are inevitably incompatible with Apache community values.
2: Cadence releases are not inevitably incompatible with Apache
community values.
People who take the first position see this desire to use cadence as
weakening o
24 matches
Mail list logo
