While I agree that binary artifacts are for convenience purposes, if one
searches our dist folder they will find lots of projects with binary
releases.
When reviewing binary archives we need to make sure that the license file
is updated with the shiped dependencies licenses appropriately and that
Those are "convenience binaries" ... not "binary releases".
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:25 AM Luciano Resende
wrote:
> While I agree that binary artifacts are for convenience purposes, if one
> searches our dist folder they will find lots of projects with binary
> releases.
>
> When reviewing bin
+1. That distinction is important. The ASF, and our projects, release source
code.
> On Oct 25, 2018, at 6:39 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Those are "convenience binaries" ... not "binary releases".
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:25 AM Luciano Resende
> wrote:
>
>> While I agree that binary arti
Apache Arrow is receiving a donation of a Ruby library to provide an
Arrow-based interface to Apache Parquet files [1].
Please vote to approve this contribution.
This is a lazy consensus majority vote, per the IP clearance process
[2], open for at least 72 hours.
Wes
[1]: http://incubator.apach
Sorry about that I missed the topic autocorrection.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> I would like to discuss accepting bprc project into the Incubator:
> Initially there were five developers from Baidu, but now these are from
> several compani
Jim, you’re re-iterating the premise of my question. In the context of my
question, it doesn’t matter what these things are called. But we need to know
how reviewers are to handle them.
Since I asked the original question, I have found the following policy[1]:
> COMPILED PACKAGES
>
> The Apache
Julian,
Since binaries are provided as a convenience with no official standing, it
doesn't matter if the "binaries" are "verified" or not. They could contain a
virus or other malware. Users take the risks.
However, folks have used the policy you reference to come up with several
checks such
hi,
While we don’t officially vote on connivance releases, I usually follow the
guidance here [1] and check that they follow at least current licensing policy.
That often means that they have different LICENSE and NOTICE files to the
source release.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:25 PM Julian Hyde wrote:
> Jim, you’re re-iterating the premise of my question. In the context of my
> question, it doesn’t matter what these things are called. But we need to
> know how reviewers are to handle them.
>
> Since I asked the original question, I have found
Hi Greg,
I think the fact that LICENSE policy that Justin linked to applies to
convenience binaries creates confusion about reviewing binaries.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 10/25/18, 6:39 PM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:25 PM Julian Hyde wrote:
> Jim, you’re re-itera
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Yong Zhu updated INCUBATOR-224:
---
Component/s: (was: guides)
> Request for the GitHub repositories transition for dubbo-samples
Yong Zhu created INCUBATOR-224:
--
Summary: Request for the GitHub repositories transition for
dubbo-samples
Key: INCUBATOR-224
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-224
Project: Incubator
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16664717#comment-16664717
]
Yong Zhu commented on INCUBATOR-224:
refile a new issue: https://issues.apache.org
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Yong Zhu closed INCUBATOR-224.
--
Resolution: Duplicate
> Request for the GitHub repositories transition for dubbo-samples
> -
14 matches
Mail list logo
