+1
Unpacked source tarball, layout looks ok.
Checked sums and signature: ok
LICENSE and NOTICE: ok
DISCLAIMER: ok
RAT check passes: ok
Built from source: ok (7u80)
Unit tests pass: ok (7u80)
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Gokul Gunasekaran wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a call for a vote on re
I will too, and then you will have two binding votes in the affirmative.
> On Apr 22, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Pat Ferrel wrote:
>>
>> But is it worth doing yet another podling RC and release vote?
>>
>
>> If it is, please vote -1, at
ith the licensing.
>>
>> Here's my +1, not waiting for anything to be fixed.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:43 PM Andrew Purtell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I will too, and then you will have two binding votes in the affirmative.
>
ing vote, which
> seems better in any case. These issues will be fixed asap in master and the
> live site.
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>
> I was just trying to get something moving. Glad to see it.
>
> +1 (binding)
>
>>
+1 (binding)
> On May 31, 2017, at 6:03 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> I'm calling a vote to accept "Livy" into the Apache Incubator.
>
> The full proposal is available below, and is also available in the wiki:
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/LivyProposal
>
> For additional c
+1
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Karol Brejna
wrote:
> IPMC Community,
>
> The PPMC vote to release Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.4-RC1 has passed.
> We would like to now submit this release candidate to the IPMC.
>
> The PPMC vote thread is here:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d0
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Chan Lee wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The PredictionIO community has voted that 0.12.0-incubating-rc3 to be good
> for a source and binary release. This thread is to facilitate a voting for
> the
> IPMC before a final official source and binary release.
>
>
I am mentor and champion.
I've made some comment on the incubator reports to the board about readiness,
in the past few reports. PredictionIO has gotten the hang of making releases,
is reliably following ASF policies and practice (I lurk on all the lists), has
grown their PPMC, and on their own
e to a recommendation vote?
>
> Regards,
> Donald
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > wrote:
> > > ...I think
Thank you Shane!
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Donald Szeto wrote:
> Awesome. Thanks for your clarification Shane!
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:44 PM Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> > Andrew Purtell wrote on 10/3/17 5:59 PM:
> > > I think we can proceed to a vote as so
Forwarding my +1 (binding) from the PPMC vote
I think the issues with the website are not fatal to the vote and I am
confident will be addressed before it closes. I think it is also fine to
wait for them to be addressed before proceeding.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Donald Szeto wrote:
> Hi
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After some discussion on the Druid proposal[1], I'd like to
> start a vote on accepting Druid into the Apache Incubator,
> per the ASF policy[2] and voting rules[3].
>
> A vote for accepting a new Apache Incubator p
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Following the discussion earlier in the thread:
>http://s.apache.org/Dk7
>
> I would like to call a VOTE for accepting HTrace
> as a new incubator project.
>
> The proposal is available at:
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/in
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Luke Han wrote:
> Following the discussion earlier in the thread:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201411.mbox/%3ccakmqrob22+n+r++date33f3pcpyujhfoeaqrms3t-udjwk6...@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> I would like to call a VOTE fo
>From what I understand, that Accumulo may or may not suffer from
"bifurcation" is debatable despite this blanket claim otherwise.
Regardless, Sean's point is valid, even if only a theoretical concern for
NiFi at this point. If the podling is interested in growing outside
community I'd be happy to
ion that request to enter incubation is a strong
> intent to grow outside of the project's current home.
>
> +1 (non-binding) for entry
>
>
> Andrew Purtell wrote:
>
>> From what I understand, that Accumulo may or may not suffer from
>> "bifurcation"
+1 ( binding)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NiFiProposal has elicited a cheerful and
> positive conversation, so I offer this vote.
>
> Vote will be open for the usual 72 hours ...
>
> Here is my [+1]
>
--
Best regards,
- And
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Daniel Dai wrote:
> Following the discussion earlier, I'm calling a vote to accept SAMOA as a
> new Incubator project.
>
> [ ] +1 Accept SAMOA into the Incubator
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to the acceptance of SAMOA
> [ ] -1 Do not accept SAMOA because ..
There are honorary and practical reasons why a project may view the PMC Chair
and the project leader as one in the same.
Honorary: The community elevated one member as lead and assigned the Chair role
out of respect.
Practical: The PMC Chair has the power to dissolve the PMC, and is an office
ty.
> On Dec 29, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 12/29/2014 01:45 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>> There are honorary and practical reasons why a project may view the PMC
>> Chair and the project leader as one in the same.
>>
>> Honorar
> An addition of the overseeing committee, will shield the board from
>
*some* of the day-to-day business of telling the pTLP that something
>
needs to be fixed.
Is this pretty close to IPMC in another name?
Who gets to be on the new overseeing committee? Not current IPMC membership
right?
> One extra thing to note, that while we can *start* this comittee as
dedicated
>
to Incubating projects, it will be a very natural extension to get it
involved
>
in monitoring all of TLPs, not just pTLPs.
What problem exists today where the Board needs
such
a buffer?
In what ways could
Thanks Roman.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
> >> One extra thing to note, that while we can *start* this comittee as
> > dedicated
> >>
> > to Incubating projects, it wil
Thanks for bringing to my attention that I did not sign off on the HTrace
report this month. It was due to an unfortunate busy spell. Since according
to this report it appears I may not be able to adequately mentor HTrace, I
have resigned as mentor from that podling effective immediately.
On Wed,
I think the cures are all problematic and might be worse than the disease.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > at this point we have had a few lively threads
> > discussing three somewhat different
I do not dispute anything written below nor do I intend this to be a last
word, just a clarification.
> I
n neither model are people powerless in any meaningful sense.
I approached these proposals by putting myself in the shoes of a newcomer
as best as I'm able (I've been PMC for years and PPMC
e mentor-reboot
> proposal.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> > On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> >
> > I think the cures are all problematic and might be worse than the
> disease.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at
I find the direction this discussion has gone personally disappointing, but
I might be missing understanding of some crucial point.
> 2. the initial PMC is comprised of only ASF Members. committers can be
>
chosen however the community decides. but the *project* is reviewed by
> people with (h
the project.
How is this not true? What can the incoming community make a binding vote
on, under this proposal?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
> > Those of us in such a new incoming communit
nd has no recourse but to go along
> with the outcome of Apache politics or abandon the project.
>
> How is this not true? What can the incoming community make a binding vote
> on, under this proposal?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> >
me perhaps quaint notion.) Of course in
IPMC voting it is different, but the IPMC is where supervision happens, or
doesn't, as some argue.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 25.01.2015 19:16, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > With a PPMC we invite newcomers to make
es to be meaningful.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 25.01.2015 19:51, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> >> That hardly ever happens (it's most likely when there are problems with
> > >
> > a podling's first few releases), which is why you get
n-binding stakeholdership
in decisionmaking on new commiters, releases, and so on.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Andrew Purtell
wrote:
> > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP.
>
> Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal
> ownership i
In all of the projects I have been PMC or PPMC on, we vote on releases, new
committers, and elevating committers to PMC.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>
> > > This is *exactly* the way th
Yes, and I briefly confused the two, and fessed up.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is
> what we're talking about. Not the Strawman.
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew
out
> +1 and similar as shorthand for our preference, but we never tally, as it
> isn't a formal vote.
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>
> > In all of the projects I have been PMC or PPMC on, we vote on releases,
> new
> > committers,
15 21:07, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > I'm not arguing with you Greg (smile), honestly, Subversion sounds like a
> > very laid back place to participate. It's different in Bigtop, HBase,
> > Phoenix, Whirr (of historical note), and Hadoop (secondhand observation),
> >
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
> Hello
>
> The Apache NiFi (incubating) team is pleased to be calling this vote for
> the source release of Apache
> NiFi 0.0.1-incubating.
>
> With six binding (in the ppmc sense) +1 votes and no dissenting votes the
> PPMC has appr
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Following the discussion earlier in the thread:
>http://s.apache.org/KWE
>
> I would like to call a VOTE for accepting Groovy
> as a new incubator project.
>
> The proposal is available at:
> https://wiki.apache.org
It certainly wouldn't hurt to have another channel for getting the word
out. I presume @ASFIncubator would announce new proposals, new projects,
project graduations, and releases of incubating software? Anything else
besides that ? (Which is quite a lot already.) This would be more Incubator
covera
If you are looking for mentors, I helped on the Phoenix incubation, happy
to do so again for Trafodion.
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Stack wrote:
> I would like to start up a discussion on Trafodion joining the ASF as an
> incubating project.
>
> Trafodion is a webscale SQL-on-Hadoop solution
+1
Checked signature and sums of nifi-parent (1.0.0), nifi-nar-maven-plugin
(1.0.1) and nifi (0.1.0) source release zipfiles.
Unpacked all source release zipfiles, layout looks good
README, LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER files are present in each source
zip and look ok
Source builds of nifi-paren
Java Cryptography
> Extension (JCE) for Java code.
>
> Required Resources
>
> Mailing Lists
>
> priv...@trafodion.incubator.apache.org
> d...@trafodion.incubator.apache.org comm...@trafodion.incubator.apache.org
>
> Git Repository
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache
As Sean says he's been engaged with the project while acting as mentor,
IMHO beyond mentor-ly duties. If the NiFi folks will have him on the
initial PMC and he's willing to join it, this should resolve the stated
concerns.
On Friday, June 12, 2015, Sean Busbey wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9
providing realtime command and control
> > > > > >> and detailed chain of custody for data; and be it further
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
+1 (binding, podling mentor)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
> Hello Apache Incubator
>
> This thread is to call a vote within the Incubator for the graduation
> of Apache NiFi.
>
> Status page: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/nifi.html
> Incubator graduation discussion:
> Pistachio can easily embed computation to the storage layer to achieve the
> best data locality to improve the computation performance significantly
> which is an innovative model comparing with the normal ways where the
> storage and compute are independent to each other.
Have you heard of some
It was a simple question, and not meant to suggest anything one way or
other regarding my opinion of this proposal.
On Monday, June 22, 2015, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:26 PM Andrew Purtell > wrote:
>
> > > Pistachio can easily embed computation to th
gt; Please let me know if I'm not clear enough.
>
> Thanks,
> Gavin Li
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>
> > It was a simple question, and not meant to suggest anything one way or
> > other regarding my opinion of this proposal.
>
In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC
>
feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings.
I've been through incubation as a mentor on Phoenix, Nifi, and now getting
up to speed on Trafodion, I have not seen micromanagement of podlings.
+1
After the retirement of the HTrace podling to the attic we are facing a
fragmentation or removal of distributed tracing capabilities from a set of
related projects (Hadoop, HBase, and Phoenix) that could really use it.
When considering a replacement I think if the replacement was also a
project
+1 binding
> On Aug 26, 2018, at 8:26 PM, Adrian Cole wrote:
>
> +1 Accept Zipkin (non binding)
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:14 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>>
>> After a brief discussion¹ I would like to call a VOTE to accept Zipkin into
>> the Apache Incubator.
>> The full proposal is availab
+1
> On Sep 16, 2018, at 2:31 AM, Manu Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi mentors,
>
> The Gearpump podling has voted to retire from incubation. Here are the
> relevant discussion and vote threads from the dev list. The vote passed
> unanimously with 6 +1s.
>
> DISCUSS:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.htm
> as for the v1 :: COBOL analogy, that’s not a bad comparison. Basically,
users who haven’t bothered to upgrade in 10 years will have to end up
paying astronomical costs for consultants who can still work on ancient
software effectively to help modify their systems.
I have to take some exception t
vestigation and a migration may likely require huge effort in
> testing.
> >>>
> >>> Assuming this quick upgrade path doesn't exist, and I already read
> struggles by other projects trying to migrate to 2.x - maintaining 1.x and
> doing a 1.2.x release makes
ecurity
fix cannot be accomplished without a breaking change. We can cross that
bridge when and if we come to it. It may never happen. Or, it might, and
then 1 has truly reached the end of the road.
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 4:17 PM Matt Sicker wrote:
> Answers below:
>
> > On Jan 8,
hair
psychiatrist, I just want a logging library without known security bugs
that remains compatible with existing code and configuration formats and
does not force me to transitively upgrade/rebuild/modify the world.
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 5:00 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
>
>
> > On
. Just a new release without JMSAppender.
> On Jan 8, 2022, at 6:34 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jan 8, 2022, at 19:39, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you using the JMS appender? Are you using the socket receiver? If the
>> answer is no t
+1 this would be a good outcome. Both Tephra and OMID are good
technologies, with respective pros and cons, and Phoenix can make good use
of both of them, should they choose to accept ownership of the code.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:26 AM Alan Gates wrote:
> Justin and mentors of Omid and Tephr
Those aren’t comparable though, right?
Solr was a sub project that graduated to a TLP.
Omid and Tephra are projects that instead of becoming TLP’s “graduated” into
the existing Phoenix TLP.
Not the same thing.
And also I don’t believe this result is unsuccessful. Neither Omid or Tephra
cod
community and stable management.
> On Nov 21, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 21, 2019, at 2:10 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>
>> Those aren’t comparable though, right?
>>
>> Solr was a sub pro
101 - 161 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
