Hi Geertjan,
not quite sure how to read this ... what are you referring to as "new culture".
The existing project coming to the ASF? And this project should adopt the
tradition of the ASF.
Or that the ASF should adopt the culture and tradition of the project joining?
(Probably then meant more as:
I agree and that’s how I see it too — coming to Apache means the assumption
that you’re wanting to adopt its culture. However, there are definitely
very frustrating aspects to that culture. The biggest fix I’d suggest for
the incubator is parallel voting — i.e., start the PPMC vote and IPMC vote
at
Hi,
> The biggest fix I’d suggest for the incubator is parallel voting
Worthy of consideration (please start a thread), but IMO we want to be careful
it doesn’t overwhelm the IPMC. I’ve seen some RCs got through 10+ votes, and
most go through 2 or 3. That’s potentially 2 or 3 or 5x more calls
I can see how this can be annoying,
But I also have to see the IPMC workload ... we're raising quite a number of
podlings.
Having the votes start in parallel on the podling dev and the general incubator
list
would probably not decrease the number of cancelled votes. I would be fine with
allo
Hi Incubator.
As a Zipkin incubator mentor, I am asking to make Zipkin all repositories back
to original OpenZipkin org as soon as possible.
They have done a public ml vote, result is here[1].
Also, with no transfer happened about Zipkin trademark, logo, domain, so, there
is no such thing about
But if you are releasing Maven artifacts, I would assume that you change the
group-ids to not start with "org.apache"
and the packages should probably be changed too. But not 100% sure if this is
just a nice-to-have or a hard requirement.
And also I didn't check the coordinates or package st
as there was little progress inside incubator, the far easiest on
everyone is to resume our old "io.zipkin" group ids. We have no plans
to use any apache namespaces as it represents one release of several
out of many projects. Least surprising and distracting is a
straightforward revert.
-A
On Mo
Thank you all,
YorkShen, I think at this point the best thing to do is to open a "legal"
ticket at this Jira (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL). I
suspect that if you're only including the BSD-licensed headers, that Weex
will only be dependent on BSD-licensed code. It's possible that
Hi
Zipkin doesn’t change the java package name, and had no plan to do that.
We just changed the groupid, and are reverting it back to `io.zipkin`.
So, I don’t see this as a block.
Sheng Wu
Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> 在 2019年6月17日，下午5:57，Christofer Dutz 写道：
>
> But if you are
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:58 AM Christofer Dutz
wrote:
>
> But if you are releasing Maven artifacts, I would assume that you change the
> group-ids to not start with "org.apache"
> and the packages should probably be changed too. But not 100% sure if this is
> just a nice-to-have or a hard r
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 7:13 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> > This is the link to signup to slack for this project
> http://openwhisk.apache.org/slack.html
> Yep I noted that in my email, but they would need to search for it. It
> would be good if the slack login page linked to that.
>
I don't see th
> like a google.com for example.
I meant gmail.com but slack rejects this and others like it (yahoo, hotmail
...).
-r
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:24 AM Christofer Dutz
wrote:
>
> Hi Geertjan,
>
> not quite sure how to read this ... what are you referring to as "new
> culture".
> The existing project coming to the ASF? And this project should adopt the
> tradition of the ASF.
> Or that the ASF should adopt the cul
It’s not really totally OK. People leaving back to their old place feeling
unhappy and frustrated, how is that totally OK? How positive is that
departing community going to be about Apache? Is that really totally OK? I
think it’s a sign that there was something wrong in the pre-incubation
discussio
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:51 AM Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
> It’s not really totally OK. People leaving back to their old place feeling
> unhappy and frustrated, how is that totally OK?
I'll stick with Christofer's analogy -- if you come to a new country
thinking that
the roads are paved with gol
Hi Roman,
All very true. What the Incubator could do better is to let people know the key
values of The Apache Way that will impact any existing community if they come
to the ASF through the Incubator. While it will be a community that comes (or
doesn’t), it will more likely be a vendor than a
I agree it's not a block, but there is scope for some classpath confusion.
If someone has an app that includes both the ASF and non-ASF Zipkin
jars, both will end up on the Maven classpath.
There is no way to tell which version of a particular class will end
up being loaded.
A Maven relocation po
Hi -
A retirement VOTE on general@ is required. [1] This is the last formality
required. Incubation is not for every project.
Then follow [2] as much as possible, but with the exception of transferring the
repositories back to OpenZipken. In addition the IPMC will request that INFRA
make read-
+1 these seem to make the most sense to me
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 16:29 Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi -
>
> A retirement VOTE on general@ is required. [1] This is the last formality
> required. Incubation is not for every project.
>
> Then follow [2] as much as possible, but with the exception of
> tra
on the maven topic:
for almost all cases there will be no classpath problem. the most common
entry point into maven was the package for "brave" which was never released
under an apache group id. the underlying libraries had very few call sites
in comparison. the "bom" most commonly used was also n
72 hours passed. We got none -1 vote.
Based on lazy consensus, this vote passed. I will update the
ip-clearance page for the vote information.
Thanks.
Willem Jiang
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:31 PM Willem Jiang wrote:
>
> Hi Incubator PMC,
>
> The TLP Apach
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-239?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16866091#comment-16866091
]
Willem Jiang commented on INCUBATOR-239:
Here is the IPMC vote thread:
https:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-239?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Willem Jiang closed INCUBATOR-239.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Close this issue as the vote is passed.
> IP clearance for ServiceComb To
Hi
I am going to start the VOTE, let’s quickly response on that.
From my understanding, there is no meaning to still hold the community.
Please be advised,
Zipkin is just “Retire” from the ASF incubator, not really retire as OSS
project.
The community is waiting.
Sheng Wu
Apache Skywalking, Sh
Hi
This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return
back to OpenZipkin.
PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem Jiang
There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still use
the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and
+1 Agree. Best of luck to the OpenZipkin community going forward.
(Please make sure that RO clones of the repositories are kept by Infra for the
record.)
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Sheng Wu wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin le
Hello,
I am calling a VOTE to (re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating)
v1.0.0.
There are two reasons for this (re)Release:
1. Original release artifacts were not properly annotated with (incubating)
flag—IPMC asked us to regenerate the release with appropriate annotation.
2. Our name
+1, only the best to the team and the community
SW> Hi
SW> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return
back to OpenZipkin.
SW> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem Jiang
SW> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin commu
+1
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:17 PM Andriy Redko wrote:
> +1, only the best to the team and the community
>
> SW> Hi
>
> SW> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> SW> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and
+1 (binding)
(and IMO this vote should never have been needed/called; let's help them,
rather than hinder)
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:22 PM Sheng Wu wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> PPMC have voted.[1], carried
> 在 2019年6月18日，下午1:37，Greg Stein 写道：
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> (and IMO this vote should never have been needed/called; let's help them,
> rather than hinder)
Yes. Me too.
But still do this for saving time.
I don’t want to block this, considering they have been waiting one week.
That is also wh
31 matches
Mail list logo
