On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:23:14AM -0800, Chris Douglas wrote:
> I spent some time poking through the mailing lists, JIRA, and some
> familiar corners of the source code. The project seems to be in great
> shape, particularly w.r.t. the Incubator's graduation criteria. It's
> released a couple time
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> It doesn't require it, so maybe it's fine to leave out Hadoop.
>
> Even if it did, it would likely be a good idea not to refer to it by
> name in the resolution.
+1 Agreed.
I spent some time poking through the mailing lists, JIRA, and som
Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote on Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:15:28 -0800:
> On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> > and, IF it somehow requires Hadoop (see question above) that
> > definition should probably be extended with something like "for
> > Hadoop".
>
> It doesn't require it
Hey Marcel,
On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>
> In my view, ORM is middeware, but not all middleware is ORM. That's why I see
> it as an extension. More precise, you do state it's not just middleware, but
> "persistence, storage and retrieval middleware", but even that in
On Dec 18, 2011, at 18:15 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:28 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>> On Dec 17, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
I think the Board might have an issue with the 'purpose' o
Hey Marcel,
Thanks for your feedback. Comments below:
On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:28 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>> I think the Board might have an issue with the 'purpose' of the
>>>
First and foremost, thank you for providing comments, opinions and
insight on how we can all make Gora a better project @ ASF.
At this stage a change to either documentation or an opinion regarding
Apache Gora is fine, however I propose that as a community we were
should address the obvious concer
On Dec 18, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> I think the Board might have an issue with the 'purpose' of the
>> project (I would if I was in the Board). The formulation
>>
>> " a Project Management Committee charged with the c
Niclas Hedhman wrote on Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:16:46 +0800:
> is very vague and encompassing. When read, it could mean anything. I
> recommend a more narrow definition, or risk the Board to reject it.
Or, you know, email board@ and ask.
---
Hi Niclas,
On Dec 17, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> I think the Board might have an issue with the 'purpose' of the
> project (I would if I was in the Board). The formulation
>
> " a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and
> maintenance of open-source software rela
Niclas,
I am not sure about your statement: " is very vague and encompassing.
When read, it could mean anything", because it has specifically
mentioned that the a Project Management Committee will be created to
maintain open source project related to persistence, storage, and
retrieval middleware
I think the Board might have an issue with the 'purpose' of the
project (I would if I was in the Board). The formulation
" a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and
maintenance of open-source software related to persistence, storage,
and retrieval middleware for relational and N
12 matches
Mail list logo
