On 6/2/15 8:02 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I would proceed with the plan that the project will succeed in
> graduating.
+1. Focus on the positive, and finding new community contributors.
Trying to incubate while regularly talking about "well, if we don't make
it, we're going to leave and do X" is no
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- incubating in artefact name
- signatures and hash check out
- LICENSE and NOTICE has some minor issues (see below)
- DISCLAIMER exists
- All source files have headers
- No unexpected binaries in source release
- Can compile from source
LICENSE file mentions Apache lic
Marvin,
Thanks as ever for the coaching.
One question that has come in from David Nalley is how to deal with the
issue of Sentry. They have had some problems with process and seem not to
recognize that in the report. David suggests reverting to monthly reports
as we try to clear up the question
Does the Sentry podling (PPMC) disagree with their mentors recommendation?
I agree with the mentors proposal for both and actually raised this last
month as an issue.
John
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:56 AM Ted Dunning wrote:
> Marvin,
>
> Thanks as ever for the coaching.
>
> One question that has
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
> Thursday, June 4, 2015, 3:30:56 PM, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>> ...(at least from before 2005 up to 2008 and according to
>> Geir at least from 2000/2001). The 2 names constantly popping up in
>> these threads are Jonathan Revusky and Danie
Hello Incubators,
TinkerPop 3.0.0.M9-incubating votes are now tallied at:
+1 (3) -- Justin, Jean-Babtiste, and Hadrian.
0 (0)
-1 (0)
We will proceed with the official release. Moreover, Justin, note that we see
you final comment and will proceed as recommended.
Thank yo
I don't think that the Sentry PPMC actually disagrees with the mentor's
recommendation (and, in fact, at least one person agreed to reverting to
monthly reports).
But in reading the last 4 months of traffic on the dev list, I really don't
think that the PPMC has internalized the critique at all ei
Thanks for the clarification! So this also means that if the mentors
can't find a problem now, then it's unlikely that we can't do a
releases from the incubator because of some new IP issues cropping up.
Good news.
Thursday, June 4, 2015, 9:16:45 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at
Ted can you give some concrete examples, because I see some good feedback
along with folks attempting to address the feedback. Processes updated or
re-iterated, etc... I haven't seen any comments like "stop the presses
till... is addressed" and that being ignored. More along the lines of an
issue b
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> One question that has come in from David Nalley is how to deal with the
> issue of Sentry. They have had some problems with process and seem not to
> recognize that in the report. David suggests reverting to monthly reports
> as we try to cle
Well, I do have to say that my impressions are based on an accelerated reading
of the dev list, but I really didn't see much attention paid to issues like the
preparation of the report, posting a vote result email to the right place and
so on. More importantly as far as my impression is concer
Looks good.
+1
Le jeu. 4 juin 2015 à 12:43, Hendrik Dev a écrit :
> The Apache Johnzon PPMC has voted to release Apache Johnzon
> 0.8-incubating based on the release candidate described below. Now it
> is the IPMC's turn to vote.
>
> Git commit for the release is
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.o
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> David, me, you, or any other interested party could also add a section in the
> general narrative at the top of the report mentioning that Sentry has been a
> topic of discussion on general@incubator. I'll probably do that.
I see that Joe
13 matches
Mail list logo
