Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

On 26.04.2017 23:19, Joe Francis wrote: Dear Apache Incubator Community, We would like to submit the Pulsar proposal to the incubator. Our draft is available at: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/PulsarProposal A quick overview of Pulsar: Pulsar is a highly scalable, low latency messa

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

Hi Matteo, Glad to see you and Pulsar are here. John's idea is interesting and need to pay attention on it. There are so many messaging systems in ASF or other organizations, share client libraries between these products really make sense and will bring great benefit for our user. But as Matteo

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

This proposal looks like something I'd be interested in helping out with... some basic questions: (1) How does the compare/contrast w/ Apache Kafka and (2) What is seen as the most applicable use-case for Pulsar? Funny aside: the 1st new car I ever bought with my own money was a Nissan Pulsar. It

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > ...Funny aside: the 1st new car I ever bought with my own money was > a Nissan Pulsar. It was a piece of crap :)... Apache Pulsar (incubating): Making Pulsar Great Again ;-) -Bertrand ---

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> ...Funny aside: the 1st new car I ever bought with my own money was >> a Nissan Pulsar. It was a piece of crap :)... > > Apache Pulsar (incubating): Making Pulsar Great Aga

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

While considering the project/product interesting I am curious how the proposers and champion see this becoming a success as an ASF podling/project. Currently there seems to be only one adopter (Yahoo), and for most the contributors are paid employees (of Yahoo). Looking at the provided repo, and

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

Certainly, this is one of the main aspects of Incubation surely, to create a healthy community around a codebase and a project. I personally don't think considerations of how large or small a base is pertinent at this stage. The original Apache httpd project had an *extremely* small initial base ;

Re: [VOTE] Superset Proposal for Apache Incubator

+1 (nonbinding) On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:13 PM Jeff Feng wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Thank you for checking out our proposal on Superset and for your > consideration for the Apache Incubator. So far, I believe we have 8 > binding votes and 2 non-binding votes. > > As Taylor mentioned earlier

Re: Retiring Pirk (was [RESULT] [VOTE] Retire the Pirk podling)

To the best of my knowledge, the Pirk podling should be cleaned up. INFRA plowed through the last administrative acts as outlined on the retirement guide. If I've missed anything, please let me know and I'll circle back around. - Josh Josh Elser wrote: Just wanted to give a heads-up that I p

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

Having a lot of Yahoo employees on the Traffic Server Proposal back in 2009 was also a concern. This is something we were able to easily overcome in incubation. Building a healthy diverse community is one of the project's top priorities. -Bryan > On Apr 27, 2017, at 5:37 AM, Pierre Smits wrote

Re: [VOTE] Superset Proposal for Apache Incubator

Re-affriming my vote: +1 (binding) > On Apr 26, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Jeff Feng wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > Thank you for checking out our proposal on Superset and for your > consideration for the Apache Incubator. So far, I believe we have 8 > binding votes and 2 non-binding votes. > > As T

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

Dave, Would be happy to have a technical conversation, let us know how you would prefer to have it Joe On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 7:49 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi, Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 7:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > Joe, > > Its customary to bring in the en

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Juneau 6.2.0-incubating-RC1

Reminder that the deadline for this vote has passed and we still need 1 more binding vote. Thanks! On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:33 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Bringing over my +1 > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:26 AM James Bognar > wrote: > > > The Apache Juneau Incubator PPMC has voted *+5* to rele

RE: Guidance needed ( Apache Trafodion (incubating) release 2.1.0 )

Hello again, The Trafodion podling needs some help and guidance from the IPMC on moving forward with its current release (Trafodion R2.1). A Vote has been pending since April 17th. I've been following the other thread on the "Incubator Governance Change" as well and the last message from Roma

Re: Guidance needed ( Apache Trafodion (incubating) release 2.1.0 )

Hi Sandhya, I’ll review your rc now and will respond today. In the meantime I would suggest asking on general@ to see if anyone is available to help mentor Trafodion (which you mostly have here). You may also want to privately touch base privately with inactive mentors to see if the wish to co

Re: Guidance needed ( Apache Trafodion (incubating) release 2.1.0 )

Well said, Sandhya, Looking forward to seeing that 1 need vote cast. Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Sandhya Sundaresan < sandhya.sundare.

RE: Guidance needed ( Apache Trafodion (incubating) release 2.1.0 )

Thank you Taylor ! Yes we'll open a separate thread for the mentor search and give some more background on the project and what specific help we'll need going forward. Thanks Sandhya -Original Message- From: P. Taylor Goetz [mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:5

Re: [VOTE] Apache Trafodion (incubating) release 2.1.0 RC 3

+1 (binding) - L&N look good and DISCLAIMER exists - signature is good - spot checked license headers - verified no binaries included I noticed the same “installer” vs. “install” issue John pointed out, but that’s very minor. -Taylor > On Apr 17, 2017, at 2:24 PM, Sandhya Sundaresan > wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Trafodion (incubating) release 2.1.0 RC 3

Thanks! Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > +1 (binding) > > - L&N look good and DISCLAIMER exists > - signature is

Re: [VOTE] Superset Proposal for Apache Incubator

Re-affirming my vote as well: +1 (binding) On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Julian Hyde wrote: > Re-affriming my vote: > > +1 (binding) > > > On Apr 26, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Jeff Feng wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > Thank you for checking out our proposal on Superset and for your > > con

RE: [VOTE] Apache Trafodion (incubating) release 2.1.0 RC 3

Thank you ! I have corrected the minor issue on the master branch so it'll be fine for the next release. Sandhya -Original Message- From: P. Taylor Goetz [mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:55 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Trafod

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Bryan Call wrote: > > Having a lot of Yahoo employees on the Traffic Server Proposal back in 2009 > was also a concern. This is something we were able to easily overcome in > incubation. Building a healthy diverse community is one of the project's top > prioriti

Re: [VOTE] Superset Proposal for Apache Incubator

Re-affirming. +1 (binding) On 4/27/17, 1:24 PM, "Ashutosh Chauhan" wrote: Re-affirming my vote as well: +1 (binding) On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Julian Hyde wrote: > Re-affriming my vote: > > +1 (binding) > > > On Apr 26, 2017, at 11:12 PM, J

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 5:20 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > This proposal looks like something I'd be interested in helping > out with... some basic questions: (1) How does the compare/contrast > w/ Apache Kafka and (2) What is seen as the most applicable use-case > for Pulsar? There are f

Re: [VOTE] Superset Proposal for Apache Incubator

+1 binding On Apr 27, 2017 1:35 PM, "Jitendra Pandey" wrote: > Re-affirming. +1 (binding) > > On 4/27/17, 1:24 PM, "Ashutosh Chauhan" > wrote: > > Re-affirming my vote as well: > > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Julian Hyde > wrote: > > > Re-affriming my vot

Re: [VOTE] Superset Proposal for Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > +1 binding > > On Apr 27, 2017 1:35 PM, "Jitendra Pandey" > wrote: > > > Re-affirming. +1 (binding) > > > > On 4/27/17, 1:24 PM, "Ashutosh Chauhan" > > wrote: > > > > Re-affirming my vote as well: > > > > +1 (binding

Re: Airflow voting on release artifacts

Hi folks, Given that the source bits are the official release, would it be okay if the community as a whole decided on say the following approach: 1) Bundle source with version set to 1.8.1 2) Bundle binary convenience artifacts built using version set to 1.8.1rc1 3) Publish source and binary bit

Re: Airflow voting on release artifacts

I'm not on the IPMC, so I don't have an official vote, but for me, it would be ok if you include step 2a and the voters have a way to validate that the 1.8.1rc1 binary they tested is "the same"=="identical except for version numbers" as the 1.8.1 binaries you want to distribute to customers. Also,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pulsar - proposal for Apache Incubation

Hi - I am in California and could do a webex this Monday. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:41 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > > >> On 26.04.2017 23:19, Joe Francis wrote: >> >> Dear Apache Incubator Community, >> >> >> We would like to submit the Pulsar proposal

Re: Airflow voting on release artifacts

Hi, > The implication here is that the release manager is being trusted by the > PMC to release the modified convenience artifacts from the voted-upon > source without a new vote. How are the artefacts modified after the vote? IMO As long as the hashes and signature are the same there is no iss