+1 from me (binding). Congrats guys!
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: c
Hi Everyone,
We wrapped up the vote on the Apache Drill dev list in which the community
expressed its desire to graduate to a top-level project. That vote passed
with 23 +1s (http://bit.ly/1tcrHVS) and 0 -1s (including the project's
mentors, PMC members and committers, as well as IPMC members).
T
Hi,
> Binary dependencies are, by definition, not released by the ASF; because
> we release source code. Also, software that has dependencies that are
> only available in binary form is not open-source, in my book.
You may possibly be forgetting about Category B licensed dependancies. These
may
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:55 AM, 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
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> At this point, unless someone not on the Flex PMC says that we can’t make
> the modifications,
I understand that your deadline is today, thus you are operating in emergency
mode and within what you have determined individually is within the bo
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
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 source materials needed to make changes t
On 10/21/14, 5:57 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>The problem is that we lack a concise policy document. That's where the
>"ASF
>release policy codification proposal" as worked through on legal-discuss
>a few
>months ago is supposed to help.
>
> http://s.apache.org/aGm
> https://github.com/r
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> P.S.: Why anyone would think voting on binaries makes any kind of sense
>> around here is, of course, a different question. I can't even begin to
>> count the number of times it's been pointed out that binaries are not
>> Apache release
On 21 October 2014 07:26, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > 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
10 matches
Mail list logo