Hi,
>> if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something
>> like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that
Perhaps ask yourself why that is? Is it because the
licensing/copyright/provenance is unclear? Does the files version control
history tell you anything? I know i
Hi,
> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look weir
> enough.
Would’t be better to fix/add the headers? That way the licensing of any file
would be clear and anyone editing those feel in the
Hi Justin!
sorry for a belated reply -- I was on a glorious 2.5 vacation with a
total disconnect from
my email/etc (I have to admit I did Tweet a bit, but only when it came
to non-software
related things like politics or beer). And speaking of beer -- we
really owe you a big one.
I hope you're com
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:47 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 binding
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in release name
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE and NOTICE fine
> - No binaries in the release
> - can compile from source
>
> Only one small niggle is that "build-resources-1.0.0-incubating”
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:00 PM John D. Ament wrote:
> Christopher,
>
> I wanted to start a separate thread regarding some of your branding
> comments below, to make sure we're all on the same page.
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM Christopher wrote:
>
> > IPMC,
> >
> > Please consider the foll
+1 Release looks fine.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM Kam Kasravi wrote:
> Hi IPMC Community
>
> The PPMC vote to release Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 has passed
> successfully.
>
> We would like to now submit this release candidate to the IPMC.
>
> The PPMC vote thread is here:
>
> h
IPMC Community
We're short one vote required in order to release gearpump 0.8.1.
This is our first release so please vote!
Thanks
Kam
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
> Hi IPMC Community
>
> If you have some time, this is a friendly reminder to vote for the 0.8.1
> release of
Christopher,
I wanted to start a separate thread regarding some of your branding
comments below, to make sure we're all on the same page.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM Christopher wrote:
> IPMC,
>
> Please consider the following candidates for Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating
> and Fluo Build Reso
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- incubating in release name
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE fine
- No binaries in the release
- can compile from source
Only one small niggle is that "build-resources-1.0.0-incubating” (one of the
two artefacts in the release) seems an unusual name for an apa
I also got confused by this part of the podling status page.
Perhaps we can fix this by changing the wording:
>> > members>
>> If the project website and code repository are not yet set up, use the
>> following table:
I’m not sure about the utility of verifying the current state of the podling.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:29 PM John D. Ament wrote:
> +1 release contents look good. Thank you for your due diligence on this
> release.
>
> I'll reply separately about the other comments, to not throw off this
> thread.
>
> Nitpick: Check your signature, may not be valid:
>
> gpg: WARNING: This
+1 release contents look good. Thank you for your due diligence on this
release.
I'll reply separately about the other comments, to not throw off this
thread.
Nitpick: Check your signature, may not be valid:
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There
An internal/asf EE umbrella rather.
BatchEE got more exposure than most G shared projects so not super
motivating from my point of view.
What is the real issue staying self contained? Why should a project get 500
commits and 500 mails a month once stable - or what is the evaluation there?
Le 8 a
IPMC,
Please consider the following candidates for Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating
and Fluo Build Resources 1.0.0-incubating. There are two artifacts, which
we are releasing together. They do not contain Fluo itself, but are
prerequisites for the Maven build of Fluo, which will be released via Maven
The expectation is that all podlings site should have "Team" page to list
all PPMCs and committers.
But I understand the confusion, because I do not see it mention in podling
site guide [1] nor any top level guide
Also, the statement kind of hint that you no longer need to update the
table once y
Changing the title to clarify what we're talking about now.
John
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:48 PM Mark Struberg
wrote:
> Given that Geronimo is nowadays more a kind of „EE commons“, it might fit
> in there.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 08.08.2016 um 22:32 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >:
> >
> >
Given that Geronimo is nowadays more a kind of „EE commons“, it might fit in
there.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 08.08.2016 um 22:32 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
>
> Le 8 août 2016 21:04, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" a écrit :
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I've probably missed your ping. That's right that last mo
Le 8 août 2016 21:04, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" a écrit :
>
> Hi John,
>
> I've probably missed your ping. That's right that last month I didn't
sign for two reasons:
> 1. the report was empty
> 2. I don't see lot of activity on the BatchEE project:
> 2.1. There are some commits (
https://github.com/
Hi all!
Thanks for everyone who's contributed to the discussion around the Apache
Annotator proposal:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AnnotatorProposal
>From what our Champion tells me, we're now ready to go to a vote!
We have a long and eager list of contributors, a key focus around existing
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:28 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> How hard would that be?
To be brutally honest: to me (as the original author of the code),
fairly easy. For others, perhaps not so much.
I would be quite willing to do the bulk of the initial work enabling
this. It would be my hope that t
Our Wiki tends to loose content, behaves badly on conflicts, the login
mechanism is flawed and is pretty often offline/non-responsive. It just now
took 3 minutes to serve an edit request..
I'm not using it often, but the Whimsy/SVNsupported process for TLP reports
works FAR better.
LieGrue
Hi John,
I've probably missed your ping. That's right that last month I didn't
sign for two reasons:
1. the report was empty
2. I don't see lot of activity on the BatchEE project:
2.1. There are some commits
(https://github.com/apache/incubator-batchee/commits/master) but not
super active
2.
Daniel, thanks for the feedback! I think that picking a completely unique
name for a project these days has become impossible. Other names we were
considering when we chose ARIA were in use in other places as well. There
is no ASF project that uses the name ARIA(yet:), and nothing in the
orchestrat
2016-08-08 17:57 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
> Romain,
>
> I've actually been pushing to get BatchEE to graduate for some time. IMHO
> there's no more benefit in the incubator for you guys.
>
>
Ok so this shouldn't be understood as a blocker to graduate.
> I'm pointing out the issue, as last mont
Your user will have to get added to nexus, can you please put in an infra
ticket for this
-Jake
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Michael Wu wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> My apache account is "mw".
>
> I was trying to use
>
> $> mvn -Papache-release -DskipTests -Dgpg.passphrase=${GPG_PASSPHRASE}
>
Romain,
I've actually been pushing to get BatchEE to graduate for some time. IMHO
there's no more benefit in the incubator for you guys.
I'm pointing out the issue, as last month a mentor refused sign off due to
lack of content in your report. The current report doesn't seem to be much
better.
Hi John,
Think we can be blamed to not have answered you but we took actions in
general. That said Mark was more pointing out that if there are issues with
the content it should probably be sent to batchee too explaining why and
what is expected/how we can enhance it. Typically this time you point
How hard would that be? is there data we could seed?
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > On 08/08/2016 10:03 AM, Christopher wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark Struberg >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Another possible o
-1 (non-binding) to moving this to svn or git.
I think this kind of content should have the editing access point as close as
possible to the consuming access point. Wikis are also notoriously easy to use.
(I would prefer cwiki though.)
The point is to encourage participation.
Greets,
Myrle
S
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:47 AM Mark Struberg
wrote:
> John, others. Would you please also add in the BatchEE amendments I did
> today.
>
>
Next time a draft is sent, it will be picked up (its just copy and paste).
> The feedback mechanism is great but we could improve this by also sending
> a m
-1 to CMS from this angle as well. I used it for a bit, but always had
unpredictable results.
Wiki or Whimsy seem to work well and allow universal access.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:15 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Huge -1 to CMS, we want to move away from it as I understand.
>
> This is the last
All,
The Juneau podling pointed this line on the status page template to me,
which at least to me doesn't make sense:
If the project website and code repository are not yet setup, use the
following table:
So are we not supposed to include the table if the website is up? Do we
expect podlings (a
Huge -1 to CMS, we want to move away from it as I understand.
This is the last diff of yours that I can find:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/August2016?action=diff&rev1=89&rev2=90
John
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark Struberg
wrote:
> Another possible option would be to move it to our C
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 10:03 AM, Christopher wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark Struberg
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Another possible option would be to move it to our CMS.
>>>
>>> That would bring us SVN for the people who prefer vi, but also a graphi
On 08/08/2016 10:03 AM, Christopher wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark Struberg
> wrote:
>
>> Another possible option would be to move it to our CMS.
>>
>> That would bring us SVN for the people who prefer vi, but also a graphical
>> UI for editing.
>> And it would make people make fami
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:34 AM Mark Struberg
wrote:
> Another possible option would be to move it to our CMS.
>
> That would bring us SVN for the people who prefer vi, but also a graphical
> UI for editing.
> And it would make people make familiar with our CMS.
I prefer the Wiki over CMS. I fin
John, others. Would you please also add in the BatchEE amendments I did today.
The feedback mechanism is great but we could improve this by also sending a
mail to the respective podling if you have feedback.
That way we could fix left-overs and missed paragraphs much easier.
txs and LieGrue,
st
Another possible option would be to move it to our CMS.
That would bring us SVN for the people who prefer vi, but also a graphical UI
for editing.
And it would make people make familiar with our CMS.
Wdyt?
LieGrue,
strub
> On Monday, 8 August 2016, 9:28, Mark Struberg
> wrote:
> > Hi!
>
Hi!
Just now it happened again that we seems to have lost changes on the Reports
I'm pretty confident I made.
Point is: we use SVN for our TLP reports since forever. Why do we still fiddle
around with that weird Wiki for the incubator board reports?
What is necessary to move the incubator rep
39 matches
Mail list logo
