On 12 April 2012 06:43, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 2:36 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
...
> As chair, you should have been brought into this loop, but with the
> change from Noel I can see how this oversight happened. Sorry about
> that. It's probably another example why the curre
On 12 April 2012 07:48, Dave Fisher wrote:
...
> Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was
> wrongly done. I don't know a better way
As one of the "inner circle" I am not offended. All your points are
valid. Thank you for sharing them.
This was the first and,
Dave Fisher wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 23:48:05 -0700:
> Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was
> wrongly done. I don't know a better way
What about expanding the membership of ooo-security@? Currently it has
less than 10 subscribers.
--
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 07:48, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was
>> wrongly done. I don't know a better way
>
> As one of the "inner circle" I am not offended. All your points
On 12 April 2012 08:59, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 12 April 2012 07:48, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was
>>> wrongly done. I don't know a better way
>>
>> As one of
On 12 April 2012 09:27, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 08:59, ant elder wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>> On 12 April 2012 07:48, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was
wron
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 09:27, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 12 April 2012 08:59, ant elder wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ross Gardler
>>> wrote:
On 12 April 2012 07:48, Dave Fisher wrote:
...
> Sorry, I can't re
+1 from me (binding).
Karl
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Shinichiro Abe
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC6.
> This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection.
>
> You can download the release candidate from
> http://people.
Personally I believe that:
a) each podling is unique and has unique circumstances that only the
active mentors are aware of
b) that AOO has a real problem with a small number of very vocal
individuals outside the project seeking to undermine the AOO community
(this was evidenced in the run up to
+1 (binding),
Tommaso
2012/4/12 Karl Wright
> +1 from me (binding).
>
> Karl
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Shinichiro Abe
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC6.
> > This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection.
ping
We still need one vote here.
Anyone willing to take a look at LARQ RC-1?
http://people.apache.org/~castagna/merge-jena-larq-1.0.0-RC-1/
Thanks,
Paolo
Paolo Castagna wrote:
> Thank you Leo, thank you Benson.
> We still need one vote, I think...
>
> Cheers,
> Paolo
>
> Leo Simons wrote:
>>
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:43 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> Short of people.a.o/~luser/my-patch.tgz, I'm fairly certain that
> can't happen with an incubating podling. Everything under the space
> /dist/ must exist under a PMC.
I totally agree for proper releases (with a source archive) b
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote:
> I'd like to call for a VOTE for CloudStack to enter the Incubator.
+1: accept CloudStack into Incubator
PS. Unless you've already done so, please get in touch with the ASF
infra team as soon as possible on the various infrastructure
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:43 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> Short of people.a.o/~luser/my-patch.tgz, I'm fairly certain that
>> can't happen with an incubating podling. Everything under the space
>> /dist/ must exist under a PM
On 12 April 2012 15:05, Rob Weir wrote:
> I'd recommend that future podlings, and the IPMC, consider this aspect
> when reviewing new podling applications. It should probably be
> treated explicitly in the wiki proposal for podlings that expect to
> take more than 3 or 4 months to get to their f
On 04/12/2012 07:33 AM, Paolo Castagna wrote:
ping
We still need one vote here.
Anyone willing to take a look at LARQ RC-1?
http://people.apache.org/~castagna/merge-jena-larq-1.0.0-RC-1/
Thanks,
Paolo
+1 binding
-
To unsubsc
/me wondering if any of this feedback ever got channeled back to
security@? (or was it only on @incubator lists)
Jukka Zitting wrote on Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 15:07:56 +0200:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:43 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
> > Short of people.a.o/~luser/my-patch.tgz, I'm f
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Jukka Zitting
> wrote:
>> Looking at the report and recent project activity it looks like Giraph
>> is doing pretty well. In fact I can't spot any obvious graduation
>> blockers. Anything I'm missing? I
I don't think the problem is with the size of the ooo-security list membership.
I think it is in the assumption that the [P]PMC has somehow delegated the
ability to make a release of any kind to the ooo-security team. I don't mean
slip-streaming fixes and working off the public SVN until that
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I don't think the problem is with the size of the ooo-security list
> membership. I think it is in the assumption that the [P]PMC has somehow
> delegated the ability to make a release of any kind to the ooo-security team.
> I don't
Hi,
Thanks for the report, Kitty!
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Apache Wiki wrote:
> + In order to get graduated, Kitty needs the following features:
> + 1) The ability to save profiles of commonly connected to jmx servers
> including groups of tomcat servers
> + 2) The ability to collect met
On 4/12/2012 2:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 12 April 2012 07:48, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was
>>> wrongly done. I don't know a better way
Don't, these conc
On 4/12/2012 4:30 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> That being said I will again summarise what I believe the IPMC can
> take away from this:
>
> - all mentors should be included in the process, not a subset
That's on the mentors of a given project to decide. I can see where
this could be a hardship
On 4/12/2012 9:05 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jukka Zitting
> wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, it sounds like the case was handled reasonably well under some
>> fairly challenging constraints, so I'm not too worried about details
>> like this as long as this remains a one-off spec
@Rob,
In fact, I posted to ooo-dev and ooo-users information on the significance of
the vulnerability and ways to mitigate it.
I was unsuccessful in posting instructions, after several failed attempts, for
applying the patch on Windows XP where the dialogs are different and have
different cons
Oh, and I communicated to another podling (via their podling-private@ ) whose
PPMC I am not on that they might want to pay attention to this vulnerability as
well, and that was apparently valuable input.
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Per advice from our Mentors, I have edited the text in the “how can incubation
> run more smoothly” section of the Flex report for April.
OK, thanks.
I'm sorry about the infrastructure trouble you're experiencing. I
guess we should signal
I should also mention that Jukka voted +1 during the community voting
on this RC, so his vote should be binding here as well.
Karl
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Tommaso Teofili
wrote:
> +1 (binding),
> Tommaso
>
> 2012/4/12 Karl Wright
>
>> +1 from me (binding).
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> On Wed, Apr
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> @Rob,
>
> In fact, I posted to ooo-dev and ooo-users information on the significance of
> the vulnerability and ways to mitigate it.
>
Yes, after the official security bulletin went out to those same lists. Thanks.
> I was unsuccessf
On 12 April 2012 17:32, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I don't think the problem is with the size of the ooo-security list
> membership. I think it is in the assumption that the [P]PMC has somehow
> delegated the ability to make a release of any kind to the ooo-security team.
> I don't mean slip
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
>> - at least the IPMC chair should be involved, if not the whole IPMC
>
> That can be remedied today. Jukka, if you like, please join the ASF
> wide security team, at minimum as an observer.
Thanks, but I'd rather not have to worr
On 4/12/2012 2:37 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Dave Fisher wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 23:48:05 -0700:
>> Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was
>> wrongly done. I don't know a better way
>
> What about expanding the membership of ooo-security@? Currently it ha
Yes, this was already raised on the PPMC (on March 22) as you know. It seems
to me that the PPMC is not concerned.
It is interesting that it is thought, here, that the remedy is to add more
ooo-security subscribers from the PPMC. That had not come up before.
- Dennis
-Original Message--
Hi Jukka,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the report, Any23!
>
No hassle, thank you for taking the time to criticize the report we are
working to make Any23 a more appealing project and the more we can do to
make reporting clearer, more accurate and h
On Apr 12, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Yes, this was already raised on the PPMC (on March 22) as you know. It seems
> to me that the PPMC is not concerned.
>
> It is interesting that it is thought, here, that the remedy is to add more
> ooo-security subscribers from the PPMC
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Apr 12, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> Yes, this was already raised on the PPMC (on March 22) as you know. It
>> seems to me that the PPMC is not concerned.
>>
>> It is interesting that it is thought, here, that the rem
On Apr 12, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, this was already raised on the PPMC (on March 22) as you know. It
>>> seems to me that the PPMC is not concerned.
>>>
>
On 12 April 2012 22:20, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
...
>> Normally a podling will set the PMC as part the graduation resolution.
>> Perhaps the AOO PPMC membership needs to be revised sooner. Any advice?
...
> I have no doubts that as a TLP the AOO
On 4/12/12 3:35 PM, "Karl Wright" wrote:
>I should also mention that Jukka voted +1 during the community voting
>on this RC, so his vote should be binding here as well.
For future reference, it is a best practice to include a link to the PPMC
VOTE thread [1]. It has also been suggested that the
caofyjnysuhk+g0rcppq2r4hbndo2hf6lxpo8xz12gg9rzh1...@mail.gmail.com
Karl
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
wrote:
> On 4/12/12 3:35 PM, "Karl Wright" wrote:
>
>>I should also mention that Jukka voted +1 during the community voting
>>on this RC, so his vote should be binding
40 matches
Mail list logo
