+1 (non-binding)
> On 10 Nov 2016, at 16:41, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> Subsequent to the discussion on RocketMQ, I would like to call a vote on
> accepting RocketMQ into the Apache Incubator.
>
> [ ] +1 Accept RocketMQ into the Apache Incubator
> [ ] +0 Abstain.
> [ ] -1 Do not accept RocketMQ in
PMC status and if they were to be granted
committer status then the ASF requires they have a ICLA on file
Rob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
+1 (binding)
Good luck
Rob
On 15/12/2015 08:56, "Nick Kew" wrote:
>I should like to call a vote to accept Milagro into
>the Incubator. The full proposal is available at
>https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MilagroProposal
>as well as below.
>
>Note that the proj
Niall
Thanks for digging up the reference
I knew INFRA had made the change for a reason but couldn't remember the
reasoning
Rob
On 01/12/2015 16:18, "Niall Pemberton" wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>wrote:
>
>> Greets,
>>
&
mer etc I don't see that the
IPMC necessarily needs to continue enforcing the subdomain requirement?
Rob
On 01/12/2015 07:21, "Sergio Fernández"
wrote:
>They used to have a redirects. But you' re right, looks like not
>anymore...
>So we should ask INFRA to get a 307
+1 (binding)
Rob
On 24/11/2015 19:32, "Todd Lipcon" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like
>to
>call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is
>pasted below and also
+1 (binding)
Good luck
Rob
On 24/11/2015 00:53, "Hyunsik Choi" wrote:
>Hello folks,
>
>Thanks for all the feedback on the S2Graph Proposal.
>
>I would like to call for a [VOTE] on S2Graph joining the ASF as an
>incubation project.
>
>The vote is open for a
the project e.g.
./pr-stats apache hadoop
Fairly basic tool but should give you enough to gauge where things are
Rob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e
re is room for them at the ASF.
Probably the key takeaway from this thread should be that we should trust
podlings (and TLPs) to have the RTC vs CTR debate within their own
communities and allow them to decide what works best for them as a
community without an outside body like the Incubator mandati
any external
code incorporated into the code base needs to be under Apache compatible
licenses and appropriately attributed
Rob
On 09/11/2015 18:11, "Todd Lipcon" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Another hopefully simple question:
>
>The Mentor guide contains the following text:
>
&
lder on this
very note which I really should get around to sending
Thanks for reminding me,
Rob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
plex approval
process that can take 2-3 months in order to get the legal approval just
to release products that happen to depend on open source code (let alone
open source our own code). Compared to that experience I'll happily take
the Apache release vote proce
+1
On 14/09/2015 16:17, "Adam Fuchs" wrote:
>Thanks again for the healthy discussion on Rya. With that, I would like to
>call a VOTE for accepting Rya as a new incubator project.
>
>The proposal text is included below, and is posted on the wiki here:
>https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RyaProposa
es at rdf4j.org (though I'll admit to not
understanding what I'm supposed to call it anymore either!)
Similarly the documentation section mentions papers but doesn't provide
links, while both can be found online easily enough it would be nice to
add the links in
Regards,
Rob
On 03/0
the (albeit small)
community. They would probably just set up on github and continue
with the same pace of activity, with a lighterweight process, outside
of Apache. So, personally, I don't think the Attic would be the death
of the ODF Toolkit.
Regards,
-Rob
-
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015, John D. Ament
wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm adding some shepherd notes for ODF Toolkit. I think my main concern is
> lack of mentor participation on the project. Rob Weir (I swear every time
> I type his name I type the d) has taken a mentor role
se I see no reason not to allow them that
and there are other precedents for that (e.g. Apache Commons)
Rob
On 11/08/2015 18:03, "Chris Nauroth" wrote:
>One thing to consider is that release version numbers are tied to specific
>JIRA projects. If the intention is for Apex and
+1 (binding)
Rob
On 28/07/2015 21:03, "Konstantin Boudnik" wrote:
>Following discussions [1],[2] about its current status, the Ignite
>community
>has voted [3] to graduate from the Incubator. The vote passed [4] with 14
>(non-binding) +1s:
>
> 1. Yakov Zhdan
making a new major release and don't need to provide
backwards compatibility we are finally updating package names to be
org.apache.jena based
Rob
On 22/07/2015 15:21, "Cédric Champeau" wrote:
>> * renaming of packages from brooklyn.* to org.apache.brooklyn.* will be
>&
iately distinguish them from ASF actions
and releases. However if individuals start publishing stuff to popular
public central repository services then clearly there is a danger of
confusion as to the source of the package(s).
Rob
>
>Markus
>
>
and report a
bug which we then want to ask them to test a fix for then they are clearly
in the developer category (or more accurately they are a contributor) and
I would have no problem to pointing them to the nightly builds so they
could do this.
However putting stuff out there on an exter
ong to ASF or still be our company?
>
>
The ASF owns the copyright for the collective work
Individual contributors retain copyright to their individual contributions
(note that contributions are not necessarily just code), through Clause 2
Grant of Copyright License of the Apache License 2
ings when they get it wrong is the
best we can do in this area but I'd love to know if people have any ideas
of how we could do this better?
Rob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
SE-2.0) includes
explicit terms for this in Clause 2
Essentially in non-lawyer speak:
- Contributors retain the copyright to their contribution
- Contributors grant a copyright license to all downstream users of their
contributions that permits redistribution, modificati
plementation as part of the core? Is this not favouring one
vendor over another?
If Neo4j provides the implementation they can do so under whatever license
terms they prefer and Apache Tinkerpop does not have to worry about this
Rob
+1 (binding)
Rob
On 19/04/2015 22:46, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>Following the discussion earlier in the thread:
> http://s.apache.org/Oxt
>
>I would like to call a VOTE for accepting Geode
>as a new incubator project.
>
>The proposal is available at:
>
+1 (binding)
Rob
On 19/03/2015 08:20, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote:
>+1 non-binding
>
>2015-03-19 9:07 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>
>> +1
>> Le 19 mars 2015 09:07, "Ashish" a écrit :
>>
>> > +1 non-binding
>> &g
+1
Rob
On 27/02/2015 19:19, "Lewis John Mcgibbney"
wrote:
>Hi general@,
>
>Over the last while a number of individuals have been putting together a
>proposal and gathering interest in proposing Commons RDF for acceptance
>into the Apache Incubator. Having worked our
+1 (binding)
Rob
On 22/02/2015 05:34, "Adam Bordelon" wrote:
>Hello friends,
>
>After receiving a positive response on the discussion thread, and even a
>new Mentor (Luciano), I would like to call a VOTE to accept Myriad into
>the
>Apache Incubator. I will end the
ularly want to) and thus would only want to be a mentor.
As you said this would probably be a relatively easy mentoring gig with
most of the effort being around just keeping an eye on the community to
sign off and comment on reports and to review release as and when they
come around.
Rob
On 10
-1 then that should be treated as a veto and
you need to go back to the drawing board and/or discuss further until
their concerns are addressed and the -1 is withdrawn
http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification
If your community is small then hopefully it should be easy to re
originally developed then in one previous case I've
seen it be agreed that an SGA was unnecessary. For example see this
legal-discuss thread:
http://s.apache.org/YPe
Rob
On 08/02/2015 18:10, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:09 PM, John D. Ament
>wrote:
>>
lings case?
Rob
On 25/01/2015 06:45, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>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 "sec
er time so that the project they are charged with managing does not
stagnate.
It's worth remembering that the Incubator itself does not provide much in
the way of help in terms of growing communities since that is something
that really only the incubating projects themselves can do.
Rob
On 2
rface module that will remain
stable what does it gain (other than brand association) by coming to the
ASF?
Rob
On 20/01/2015 14:28, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" wrote:
>The discussion on dev@commons about coming-to-Apache Commons-RDF
>(https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/) se
the list to remind them
about this regardless. I've seen that there are several people who've
made considerable sustained contributions which in any other ASF project
I've been involved in would have earned them sufficient merit to be
offer
o gracefully migrate users
to the new infrastructure by giving them plenty of notice and information
about what was happening and this didn't require huge amounts of effort on
our part.
Rob
On 18/12/2014 16:36, "Daniel Gruno" wrote:
>
>On 2014-12-18 17:28, Sam Ruby wrote:
&
ng
> of developers, testers, and people who know the standards in depth.
>
That sounds about right. I think that attracting more users of the
code could help with this as well.
Regards,
-Rob
.
.
.
> The project is aware that this is w
help bootstrap the community?
Rob
On 15/07/2014 03:16, "Selvamohan Neethiraj"
wrote:
>Apache Argus Proposal (http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ArgusProposal)
>
>== Abstract ==
>
>Argus is a framework to enable, monitor and manage comprehensive data
>security across the
o I am able to fill in the Apache ODF
> Toolkit project podling report?
>
Anyone?
Thanks!
-Rob
> Thanks,
> Svante
>
> 1. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/July2014
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe
hat would be much more murky as to who they are acting for and may
indeed have legal implications for the ASF
Rob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
ere:
http://markmail.org/message/yuentl3tzc3o3i3v
Regards,
-Rob
> Only there was a release announcement about 3 weeks ago for
> 0.6.1-incubating:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-odf-dev/201406.mbox/%3CCAP-ksogYbfCPx%2B7cfp6GEM%2BkOXa-xeT3rE6cd
required a lot
of bug fixing before it was ready for GA.
3) The SGA'ed code had a good number of copyleft dependencies that had
to be replaced, as well as other unique things (at the time) that
required review on legal-discuss.
4) Our priority (even over a rel
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> No other votes were received so the release is approved.
>
> Congratulations, and many thanks to the Apache ODF Toolkit podling for
> sticking it out throug
Including the earlier PPMC phase of the vote (noted in the release
manifest [1]) we have a total of 4 binding votes:
+1 PPMC Oliver Rau (olira)
+1 IPMC/PPMC Rob Weir (robweir)
+1 PPMC Svante Schubert (svanteschubert)
+1 IPMC Justin Mclean (jmclean)
No other votes were received so the release is
With no objections the vote passes by lazy consensus
Thanks,
Rob
On 22/05/2014 12:12, "Rob Vesse" wrote:
>Cray is proposing to donate a set of libraries called Hadoop RDF Tools to
>the Apache Jena project - the details of the code base can be viewed at
>https://issues.apa
applies. If no -1
votes are cast within the next 72 hours, the vote passes.
Thanks,
Rob
RC4 for the ODF Toolkit 0.6.1-incubating release is available at:
http://people.apache.org/~robweir/odftoolkit-release/odftoolkit-0.6.1-incubating/
The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/odf/tags/odftoolkit-0.6.1-incubating-RC4/
We'r
we're unable to move forward, since
that requires Mentor sign off on the release manifest/checklist.
I am able and willing to help here.
Regards,
-Rob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> The process is described here:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
>
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 Yes, to pre-clear the ODF Toolkit Polding to use the Alternate
> Release Voting Proce
Voting Process
This majority vote will run for 72 hours. Votes cast by members of
the Incubator PMC are binding.
Regards,
-Rob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail
sufficient?
Thanks,
Rob Vesse
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> I'll upgrade my vote to +1 (binding)
>>
>> That gives us two +1's from the IPMC. Need one more to release.
>>
>> I realize many are bus
it I would be
willing to help out with a POC
Cheers,
Rob
On 31/03/2014 01:52, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>Hi!
>
>a few recent discussions around IP management
>in the Incubator have lead to an interesting dialogue
>between the fine folks from Black Duck Software and
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> We've had a vote within the PPMC which passed:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-odf-dev/201402.mbox/%3CCAP-ksogUFy-OkDkdJcNYDjnn8wUf%3DxcJX%2BG2xxQLKzp5PGKEgA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> We'r
ders.
>
> Nothing to block this release.
>
> +1 (binding IPMC)
>
Great, thanks!
-Rob
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Henry Saputra
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Rob, the result
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> Hi Rob, the result Vote within PPMC [1] did not indicate mentor Vote.
>
> Is there any mentor Vote in favor within ODF dev list Vote thread?
>
No, there were no votes from mentors. That's one of our problems,
lack of ac
We've had a vote within the PPMC which passed:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-odf-dev/201402.mbox/%3CCAP-ksogUFy-OkDkdJcNYDjnn8wUf%3DxcJX%2BG2xxQLKzp5PGKEgA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
We're now looking for review and approval by the IPMC.
Rega
on my personal
profile I had to add my Apache email as an email address to my GitHub
profile
Rob
On 10/02/2014 15:03, "Sergio Fernández"
wrote:
>BTW, where is the mapping file between asf ids and github ones?
>I've seen some members of the apache organization there, but it looks
discussing here
Rob
On 6/20/13 12:22 PM, "Upayavira" wrote:
>11. In certain circumstances, there are specific people charged with
>certain responsibilities. Over time you can expect to learn who they
>are, and where they hang out. Your mentor should be able to guide you
>
Could someone please grant me write access to the Incubator wiki
My username is RobVesse
Thanks,
Rob
in your timezone may arrive in the middle of the
night for the recipient(s) so be prepared to wait for a response.
I think those of us who work in the US or for multi-national companies get
used to dealing with timezones and tend to forget that a lot of people
come from countries where there is onl
alternative to the MS/Oasis OData standard.
Rob
On 6/17/13 8:35 AM, "Klevenz, Stephan" wrote:
>Dear ASF members,
>
>We would like to propose the OData project to the Incubator.
>
>The OData Proposal is available at:
>https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ODataProposal
>
>
>
> Thanks, so far I got the impression that the most important place to put my
> key is at https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/
> I am not sure yet how to upload files to the dist folder but I'll figure
> that out.
>
> As those cha
ry is
>> f505f7c607098cdd77797417485584**49918b0b45
>>
>> The changes can be found at here:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/odf/tags/0.6-**
>> incubating-rc4/CHANGES.txt<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/odf/tags/0.6-incubating-rc4
code and core
code modifications to exist, and there are indeed "real users" in this
ecosystem who thrive on such extensions.
Regards,
-Rob
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
>
> ---
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Jukka Zitting
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the reviews, Benson! I added you as a signer-off on t
n June, there were no mentor sign-offs on the ODF Toolkit report
> and I see little mentor activity on odf-dev@. Do we need more/new
> mentors for the project?
>
An additional pair of eyes on the podling is always welcome.
Regards,
-Rob
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
>
ir identity, in their iCLA [1]. But
the form also allows them (optionally) to indicate an additional
"public name", essentially a pseudonym they use on the mailing lists,
etc.
-Rob
[1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> Begin f
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Re adding ooo-dev@ since this is STILL an AOO issue.
>
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:56
ect. We don't
> know everything. But we *do* deserve consideration to make things Right.
> AOO is an awesome opportunity or us all, and we should do what we can for
> their success. It must happen with an old, and with a new, community
> w
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:56 AM, wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 08/27/2012 08:43:35 AM:
>
>> From: Jim Jagielski
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org, Joe Schaefer
>> , Rob Weir ,
>> Cc: "ooo-...@incubator.apache.org"
>> Date: 08/27/2012 08:
ved by the PMC's
2) distributed on Apache mirrors
3) linked to as ASF products by project websites
4) accompanied by PGP/GPG detached signatures
...what additional liability do we believe comes from the
technological change from one signature mechanism to another? O
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> AOO doesn't need to change anything to their current release processes
>> other than to stop pointing source downloads at svn (which is the sole
>> reason I won't vote for AOO candidates).
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.08.2012 13:15, Tim Williams wrote:
>> Marvin gave the link earlier in this thread. 4th para is the relevant bit.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>
> The relevant part is in the last paragraph. However, that says
> "conv
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I can give the IPMC a hand here, if my point is too obscure. A policy
>> might look like this:
>>
>> Resolved: An Apache project's release consists o
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> Or if someone who cared sufficiently about this policy area took
>> ownership and proposed a wording of the policy, either as a Board
>> resolution, or on legal-
etc., that are provided for the convenience of the user.
These non-source artifacts must must be buildable from the canonical
source artifact. Additional 3rd party libraries may be included
solely in compliance with license policies defined by Apache Leg
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> Returning to this topic after an intermission...
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, A
only to AOO, but to other podlings
and to TLP's as well.
Until that happens, I hear only opinions. But opinions, even widely
held opinions, even Roy opinions, are not the same as policy.
-Rob
>> OTOH I don't think anybody said the ASF will never allow projects to
>> distribut
The community vote has passed.
Vote reference: http://s.apache.org/5GA
+1
RGB-ES
Rory O'Farrell
Carl Marcum
Reizinger Zoltan
Keith N. McKenna
Kay Schenk
Roberto Galoppini
Imacat
Andrea Pescetti
Regina Henschel
Graham Lauder
Jürgen Lange
T.J. Frazier
Rob Weir
Dave Fisher
Peter Junge
Chri
elease, with only a handful of carefully reviewed
patches, and that since AOO 3.4.0 was thoroughly reviewed and
approved, that we could concentrate our effort on reviewing the delta
between the two releases. Of course, if we do this we'll never find
pre-existing errors, and it is clear now t
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>>>
mpare the results.
I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".
-Rob
> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
>
> BTW, I th
ake is that
> both project don't move the output in the output directory of the
> module. That is the default behaviour in all modules, generated output
> during the build process goes into the module output directory.
>
Or said otherwise, these two JAR's are built from
that distinguishes their binaries as different from ours in
status?
I'm honestly trying to find out what, if anything, we need to change.
Or whether we're just arguing semantics rather than code and bits.
-Rob
> -
ased a binary
containing a virus or a trojan? And how many users have downloaded
Apache source and built it? And how many of those users then found
that their servers were compromised due to a security flaw in the
Apache source? In theory source code can be inspected. In pr
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 2012 8:33 PM, "Rob Weir" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>...
>>> > I wou
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2012 8:33 PM, "Rob Weir" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>...
>> > I would also state that continuing to argue is symptomatic of a
>> > failure
fice binaries and rebuilding the
install set with different extensions, templates, etc. This is far
easier than rebuilding from source.
> Finally this is a well known brand now, it would be hard to believe that
> if AOO did not release binaries the void would not be filled by others.
additional interest in
the source drives more investment into the ecosyste,
Regards,
-Rob
Regards,
-Rob
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Marvin Hu
st arguing about what color the bike shed is for angels dancing on a
head of pin. It is a distinction without a difference, or at least
not one that has been stated,
-Rob
> There has been disagreement about whether binaries should be official or not.
> To the best of my knowledge, e
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> Per the IPMC's "Guide to Successful Graduation" [1] this is the
>>> optional, but
release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
> Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
> approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
> binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for r
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> Per the IPMC's "Guide to Successful Graduation" [1] this is the
>> optional, but recommended, community vote for us to express our
>> willingness/rea
-- Forwarded message --
From: Rob Weir
Date: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Subject: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
To: ooo-...@incubator.apache.org
Per the IPMC's "Guide to Successful Graduation" [1] this is the
optional, but recommended, com
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:55 PM, drew wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 15:42 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, drew wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 19:43 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
>> >> On 23 Jun 2012, at 19:37, Nick Kew wrote:
>
e along with the post title. Se here:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/114598373874764163668/posts/ZiRcwog5cDJ .
If you try to fix it in the content itself, then you end up with
suboptimal results for Google+ and other places that do bring the blog
titl
The Apache OpenOffice Podling Project Management Committee is pleased
to announce the release of Apache OpenOffice 3.4, available on
Windows, MacOS and Linux.
Downloads are available at: http://download.openoffice.org
The full release announcement can be read here:
http://www.openoffice.org/news/
e reviews we've done have found and addressed many
issues. It is far better than doing nothing. In the end, I'll take
diligence over negligence any day.
-Rob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
