I am a proposed mentor associated with Pivotal, well away from my own
technology and engineering teams. I'm not good enough with darts to hit
that side of the org chart from this side of the room, but really would like
to see the contribution succeed, so I'm approaching this as always with
my ASF
+1 on what Justin said. And I am not affiliated w/ Pivotal in _any_ way.
Cos
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 08:10AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >> On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in. In
>
> To be clear, there were convers
+1 for Geode accepted into Incubator.
It shouldn't be a big issue whether the codebase is available or not at the
moment. It is part of incubation to shape it up to an open source project,
that doesn't have to happen a priori (can't recall that Google Wave was
available as OSS before coming to ASF
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:42 AM, jan i wrote:
> On 13 April 2015 at 19:19, Greg Chase wrote:
>
>> jan i apache.org> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > On Sunday, April 12, 2015, dsh gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just as a quick remark. Geode might be a trademark owned by AMD:
>> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
wrote:
> If I understand the response below correctly you misspoke when you said there
> were "export" issues. That in fact there is no related export restriction,
> it's actually about the licensing issue. If that's the case then the
@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 12:38 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
wrote:
> Pivotal are asking me to
13, 2015 12:33 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal
Ross,
do we evaluate source code at the incubation-entry level, or do we evaluate
proposed development goals and development community propositions? I'm curious
about your thoughts.
Yours,
On 13 April 2015 at 19:19, Greg Chase wrote:
> jan i apache.org> writes:
>
> >
> > On Sunday, April 12, 2015, dsh gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Just as a quick remark. Geode might be a trademark owned by AMD:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geode_%28processor%29
> >
> > Good catch, we need to
jan i apache.org> writes:
>
> On Sunday, April 12, 2015, dsh gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just as a quick remark. Geode might be a trademark owned by AMD:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geode_%28processor%29
>
> Good catch, we need to hear the opinion of trademark because it depend
> on
> it
On Monday, April 13, 2015, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >> On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning > wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in. In
>
> To be clear, there were conversations with Jim (as VP Legal) prior to
> this submission. The ASF wouldn't accept
>> On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>
>> I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in. In
To be clear, there were conversations with Jim (as VP Legal) prior to
this submission. The ASF wouldn't accept the software grant until the
Incubator approved the proposal. Piv
> On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in. In
> particular, a glance to see whether there is any hygiene around licensing
> is an important question. Many projects in the world at large have no good
> record of who write the
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> > There is no mention of such an item under "known risks" or the
> "crypotography" section of the proposal
> > so what's this "export" stuff about (assuming the license thing is the
> evaluation license)?
>
> Sorry for not being more expl
t; stuff about (assuming the license
> > thing is the evaluation license)?
> >
> > Given the points above I do not see how I can evaluate this proposal in
> > its current form.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: shaposh...@
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
wrote:
> Pivotal are asking me to agree to an "evaluation license" which I cannot view
> before I sign up.
> So I have to review the privacy policy first.
This must be a bug in your browser. What OS/Browser are you using?
The text of
port" stuff about (assuming the license
> thing is the evaluation license)?
>
> Given the points above I do not see how I can evaluate this proposal in
> its current form.
>
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com]
Given the points above I do not see how I can evaluate this proposal in its
current form.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 11:56 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISC
Since I'm getting a few off-list questions, I just want to make one point
clear:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> I'd also like to be able to review the source referred to in the proposal
>> without having to sign up to "the Pivotal network" - how can I do that?
>
> Th
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
wrote:
> Where "hand over the Geode name" also means hand over the domain name and
> GitHub organizations
> that have rather confusingly been launched in the last few days.
Yup. Everything that's been published on GitHub is going
to tr
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:50 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Roman,
>
> Is this the same as Project Geode which seems to be clogging my twitter
> feed this afternoon?
Sorry about that -- we get excited about open source ;-)
> http://projectgeode.org/
>
> If so, it looks like you already figured out t
l network" - how can I do that?
Ross
-Original Message-
From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 1:50 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal
Roman,
Is this the same as Project Geode which seems
Roman,
Is this the same as Project Geode which seems to be clogging my twitter
feed this afternoon?
http://projectgeode.org/
If so, it looks like you already figured out the naming issue. Is whoever
behind this going to hand over the "geode" name to ASF?
John
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:47 PM R
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Roman,
>
> Could you comment on the potential issue that this proposal is only
> offering up the distributed object storage. The problem that might arise
> with this is that by offering up a particular specialized core capability,
> other proj
Roman,
Could you comment on the potential issue that this proposal is only
offering up the distributed object storage. The problem that might arise
with this is that by offering up a particular specialized core capability,
other projects may find it difficult to use this core capability which
wou
On Sunday, April 12, 2015, dsh wrote:
> Just as a quick remark. Geode might be a trademark owned by AMD:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geode_%28processor%29
Good catch, we need to hear the opinion of trademark@ because it depend on
it is in an overlapping field (as I understood it). F.x. Corin
Just as a quick remark. Geode might be a trademark owned by AMD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geode_%28processor%29
Cheers
Daniel
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I would like to open up a discussion thread on
> the proposals for the core of Pivotal's GemFire
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
