+1
Ralph
On Sep 12, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Discussion about the Storm proposal has subsided, issues raised now
> seemingly resolved.
>
> I'd like to call a vote to accept Storm as a new Incubator podling.
>
> The proposal is included below and is also at:
>
> https://wiki.a
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Oct 16, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 16/10/14 18:47, sebb wrote:
>> Apart from the typo, I thought it was necessary for the VOTE thread to
>> contain the full text of the proposal.
>>
>> This has been the case for (almost) all previous acceptance votes.
>
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,
>
> I am submitting a proposal that has been open for discussion for some
> days (with the former name of Mayhem), so now submitting for a vote
> for this project to be accepted into the incubator.
>
> Vote
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Nov 14, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
> Given the feedback received so far I think the Streams proposal is in good
> shape so I am calling for a vote to accept Streams into the Incubator.
>
> The proposal is at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StreamsProp
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:28 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Following the discussion thread, here is the formal vote on the Marmotta
> proposal:
>
> Please cast your votes on whether to accept the Apache Marmotta proposal:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept Marmotta into the Apache I
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On May 24, 2013, at 12:23 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Dear ASF members,
>
> We would like to propose BeanShell for the incubator.
>
> The proposal draft is available at:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal,
> follows below the proposal
>
> Open is open for
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Jun 3, 2013, at 6:02 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) wrote:
> +1 (binding).
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:34 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> OK discussion has died down, time to VOTE to accept Spark into the
> Apache Incubator. I'll let the VOTE run for at least a week.
>
> So far I've heard +1s from the following folks, so no need for t
On Nov 26, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Tad Glines
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 9:47:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
>>
>> The word "Wave" is far more generic than "TrafficServ
On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Dan Peterson wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please vote on the acceptance of Wave into the Apache incubator.
>
> The proposal is available at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WaveProposal
> (for your convenience, a snapshot is also copied below)
>
> The earlier discus
r, Davanum Srinivas, Dave Johnson, Doug Cutting,
>> Emmanuel Lecharny, Jim Jagielski, Kevan Miller, Luciano Resende, Mark
>> Struberg, Michael McCandless, Ralph Goers, Tim Williams, and Upayavira
>>
>> The 8 non-IMPC members who are ASF members:
>> Ate Douma, B
On Dec 4, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2010, at 4:39 AM, Ian Boston wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4 Dec 2010, at 01:50, Tad Glines wrote:
>>
>>> 2010/12/3 Dan Peterson
>>> The 18 binding votes:
>>> Andrus Adamchik, Ant
On Dec 4, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Tad Glines wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2010 09:22 AM, Tad Glines wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Also, committers will not be issued accounts until their CLA (either ICLA
>>> or
>>> CCLA) has been received and recorded. Here's the
On Dec 4, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Michael MacFadden wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> If I understand correctly, an individual could submit an ICLA first and then
> later submit the CCLA if the employer or situation requires it. Meaning that
> previously submitting an ICLA would not be in conflict with a subsequ
On Dec 4, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Dan Peterson wrote:
> Michael, I believe that's correct -- it'd be great if you can take point on
> hitting up the wave committers to submit their ICLAs.
>
> For Ian Roughley and myself, we already have them on file. I think we'll
> just need to get karma when we get
On Dec 4, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Dan Peterson wrote:
>>
> Ian, Isabel (and anyone else I missed), sorry about that -- I manually
> compared the list of voters against
> http://apache.org/foundation/members.html
> (and http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html )
>
> Ralph, your list looks more up to
On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:24 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
> I've made the 2011 change already. But I'm having trouble reconciling
> your instructions with this part of the Apache license:
>
>>>
> (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
> distribution, then any Deriv
+1
Ralph
On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
> I would like to call a vote on accepting Howl as an Incubator project. The
> proposal is available at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/HowlProposal. You
> can see the discussion from the proposal thread at http://tinyurl.com/5w7y9p9.
+1
Ralph
On Feb 24, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> Given the feedback received so far I think the Rave proposal is in good shape
> so I'd like to bring up the vote for accepting Rave into the Incubator.
>
> The proposal is at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RaveProposal and also
> cop
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
>
>> We are taking it seriously. We (Howl mentors and committers) discussed
>> this and the consensus seemed to be we wanted to stay with the name if
>> possible. The feedback o
I don't recall the Commons PMC saying the project needs to be renamed when it
voted to sponsor this project. If that is necessary I'm sure they will let the
project know.
Ralph
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Jeremias Maerki
> wrote:
>>
+1
Ralph
On Apr 23, 2011, at 4:57 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all ASF mates,
> I'm writing to submit a new incubator proposal, Apache OGNL.
> Follows below the proposal; this vote will be open for 72 hours and
> will be closed on April 26th (Tue) at 12:00 am CET.
> Many thanks in advance to e
A hearty +1 from me. Do you need another mentor?
Ralph
On May 27, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> I would like to propose Flume to be an Apache Incubator project. Flume is a
> distributed, reliable, and available system for efficiently collecting,
> aggregating, and movin
Multiple threads would be welcome.
Ralph
On Jun 1, 2011, at 10:25 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Dumb question. Are we obligated to converse like this, in a single email
> thread, for the duration of the proposal review process? Is this an
> organizing principle? Would I break anything
Every Apache project's PMC has a duty and responsibility to award commit
privileges to individuals who contribute to the project and, when warranted,
invite those people to participate in the project management committee. The
conditions the PMC chooses to use to base their decisions on who to in
I've just managed to wade through some 400+ emails to this list in the last 2
days and I would estimate that less than 10 were particularly relevant to what
my vote will ultimately be on this proposal. It seems pretty clear to me that
there is a lot of emotional reaction to this but a lot of tha
On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> Not just yet. I don't want anyone to feel that we rushed this.
>
> Oh, i didn't want to rush
>
>> If that progress can be made in less than 24 hours, imagine what the
>> next 24, 48, or even 72 hours will bring.
>
> Compared and good :
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
> this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in
> on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just be
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic
>> on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now
>> focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just
>> because it w
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I posted a similar s
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>
> IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
> license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
> to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos
> interests is worth splittin
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
> collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I
> could be wrong.
I don't work for IBM but I do work for a corporation that uses a similar
business mo
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
>>
>> It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ?
>
> Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on
> my laptop or server.
> http://projec
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
>>> wrote:
>>>
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyle
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 PM, wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06
>> PM:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
>>> collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete.
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't
> IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in
> existence?
Did you not read my
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Please, before you post here could you get some understanding of the ASF?
>> The Apache Software Foundation doesn't "pick" an
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
>>>
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
>>>
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
>>
>> What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You
>> just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's
>> couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then
>> there r
There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope
Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable unless
the pending application is turned down.
Ralph
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> Hi I want to know if there is any formal cle
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> Hi I want to know if there is any formal clearance on the way OpenOffice.org
> ought to be reffered as.
>
> Since the adquisition of Sun by Oracle, they start re-inciting misquotations
> of OpenOffice.org as "OpenOffice" even later they mod
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope
>> Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable
>> unless th
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Ralph Goers >> wrote:
>>>
&
On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> Fully disagree. I encourage you to read the terms.
>>
>>> -Keith
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>
> This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says:
>
> "The Apache License, like most other
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/5/11 11:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this
project, so exactly who the hel
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
> Hi Richard, *
>
> 2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall
>>
>> On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:1
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka wrote:
>>
>> While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my
>> understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But
>> this must be answered by p
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:39 PM, arv...@cloudera.com wrote:
> As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few
> days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an
> Apache Incubator project. The proposal discussion thread and full text
> of the p
his can be
> added after project creation.
>
> = Initial Committers =
>
> * Andrew Bayer (abayer at cloudera dot com)
> * Jonathan Hsieh (jon at cloudera dot com)
> * Patrick Hunt (phunt at cloudera dot com)
> * Aaron Kim
+1
Ralph
On Jun 10, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> *** Please change your Subject: line for any [DISCUSSION] of this [VOTE]
>
> As the discussions on the OpenOfficeProposal threads seem to be winding down,
> I would like to initiate the vote to accept OpenOffice.org as an Apache
> Incub
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Tom White wrote:
> As there are no active discussions on the proposal thread, I would
> like to initiate a vote to accept Bigtop as an Apache Incubator
> project.
>
> The proposal is available at
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BigtopPropo
+1
Ralph
On Jun 27, 2011, at 10:49 PM, berndf wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> this is a vote to retire the Bluesky podling.
>
> 3.5 years into incubation, the podling has not made progress in terms of
> becoming an Apache project. Dev is still done behind closed doors, and
> developers are changing
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> Since the discussion on the thread of the Kafka incubator proposal is
> winding down, I'd like to call a vote.
>
> At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here is
> a link to the documen
Sorry, but the explanation below makes things sound even worse. Apache projects
are not here to give students a place to do school work. What you have
described is not a community. If the project cannot build a community of
people who are interested in the project for more than a school term th
On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, 2 July 2011 1:24 AM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Bluesky calls for a new mentor!
>>
>> On 7/1/2011 10:19 AM, L
+1 (binding)
Ralph
On Oct 2, 2011, at 12:36 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi all guys,
>
> I'm now calling a formal VOTE on the DirectMemory proposal located here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DirectMemoryProposal
>
> Proposal text copied at the bottom of this email.
>
> VOTE close on
On May 19, 2009, at 12:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Maarten Bosteels wrote:
Hi Les,
Is there an entry in TESS that shows us the potential naming
conflict ?
It could help us understand which names are good candidates.
I don't quite understand the problem (IANAL).
My apologies if this
My recollection of the discussion was that the recommendations where
a) don't ask the party that might be infringed on for permission, b)
it is OK to wait for the project to wait until they are contacted, if
ever, before doing anything. Ironically, shortly before this
discussion there was a
I'd vote +1 on JSecurity if it was on the list and my vote mattered.
I've still never gotten an answer why the change is even necessary.
I'm not subscribed to Ki Developers so I won't see a reply if it
doesn't come back to incubator general.
Ralph
On May 29, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Les Hazlewood
I was going to propose that whatever the next project approved for the
incubator is that it should be required to be named "Foo".
Ralph
On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
In the w
I would recommend that the public facing page for the project also be
modified since it will still show up in searches.
Ralph
On Jul 26, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This thread really needs to be put to a conclusion as policy and
procedure. On the table we have:
Suspension
On Jul 28, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
I think we need to consider the risk to Apache of leaving the svn
repo in a r/o state.
According to the XAP status page, http://incubator.apache.org/projects/xap.html
the copyright and distribution rights have not been verified, so
IMHO
On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Bertrand
Delacretaz wrote:
In such a case, the key point is, do the people who write the code
listen to the community?
That's certainly good, but IMHO not really the key point as it doesn't
address the cas
On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ralph
Goers wrote:
Using these projects as an example is perhaps not the best from a
community
perspective because Ceki has no intention of running them like Apache
projects. But even if he did, by these
On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ralph Goers> wrote:
Using these projects as an example is perhaps not the best from a
community
perspective because Ceki has no intention of running t
On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Ralph
Goers wrote:
You won't find the second part solely from the commit log. I would
expect
mentors to be monitoring the dev list. If it is filled with "can
you fix
this?" then there is
On Aug 5, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
AFAIK Nowhere in the policy it is stated that committer activity ==
code commits.
Martijn
Absolutely right. I'd actually like to see more than 3 people with
commit privs (and I think most projects have that). As a mentor I
would be look
On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
OK we have a similar example here at the ASF - when Craig McC. left
Apache Shale it slowly died - and AFAIK become the first project to
join the Attic. So Ceki decides to become a Yak farmer in patagonia
and maybe the same thing happens to S
On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Martijn
Dashorst wrote:
AFAIK Nowhere in the policy it is stated that committer activity ==
code commits.
True, but that's how I interpret it, for reasons stated earlier in
this thread.
My -1 in the Pi
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Bertrand
Delacretaz wrote:
I would oppose to a podling with no code base and no @apache.org
names
in the list of initial committers - the chances of morphing that into
a working Apache project would seem to sl
On Aug 7, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Niall
Pemberton wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Bertrand
Delacretaz wrote:
...I would oppose to a podling with no code base and no
@apache.org names
in the list of initial committers - the chances
On Aug 10, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Upayavira wrote:
The creation of a podling is heavyweight. Very heavy compared to
registering a project with Sourceforge, GitHub or GoogleCode.
Because of
the effort involved in the creation of a podling, it is natural that
the
Incubator PMC wants some reaso
See below. First, this should have been asked on legal-discuss.
Second, the answers below are just my opinion.
On Aug 16, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
I'm trying to coax out a release of Apache Thrift and ran into a
few obstacles. Maybe you can offer me a little guidance?
First, I
On Aug 16, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
On Aug 16, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
I've also found that there are 6 individuals listed in the
Facebook CCLA who do not have ICLAs with us and have accordingly
contacted them as well.
Was the Facebook CCLA a software grant and w
On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Ant,
I didn't intend to make up stuff on the fly, especially policy.
After having been through the fine points of LICENSE vs. NOTICE so
many times, I thought the consensus was to put *all* licenses into
the top level LICENSE file. Bu
On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:11 PM, sebb wrote:
On 18/08/2009, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Ant,
I didn't intend to make up stuff on the fly, especially policy.
After having been through the fine points of LICENSE vs. NOTICE so
many
tim
On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
So I found it: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
Please take a look at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
[1]
If this document is not normative, please let me know. Granted, it
says "sho
On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Ralph Goers
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:00:00 PM
Subject: Re: Making up policy on the fly
On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
So I found it: http
On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
I remember when the policy regarding @author tags was set several
years ago. Plenty of projects were using them to identify developers.
Is this documented anywhere? All I could find was a number of
discussions referencing such a decision
On Aug 21, 2009, at 6:05 AM, sebb wrote:
On 21/08/2009, Francis De Brabandere wrote:
About that assembly issue, running mvn assembly:assembly on the
assembly... I don't really think that makes sense.
The archive is supposed to contain the *full* source, i.e. whatever
was used to create the
On Sep 5, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
Voting against a bunch of people forming a new community here at the
ASF is v.disappointing and goes against what IMO the ASF is all about.
If the Felix community wants to get involved with their efforts then
great, if not then don't try to
On Sep 15, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
The Aries proposal thread has now gone quiet and we would like to call
a vote to accept Aries into the Incubator. There has been some good
discussion with a few changes to the proposal including the addition
of initial committers, increasing the
+1
Ralph
On Nov 4, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
Subversion is a version control system. You probably know it well as
it is the version control system employed by the Apache Software
Foundation.
The Subversion project would like to join the Apache Software
Foundation to remove the ove
On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> There are two other issues to discuss for the Subversion podling:
>
> * moving the mailing lists directly to @subversion.apache.org
> * placing the source code at /subversion/ rather than /incubator/subversion/
>
> We are hoping to minimize over
On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 21:09, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> There are two other issues to discuss for the Subversion podling:
>>>
>
Is this topic really appropriate for incubator general? I'm having trouble
following along with all the noise.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incub
On Nov 11, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 20:48, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> Is this topic really appropriate for incubator general? I'm having trouble
>> following along with all the noise.
>
> At the root, it is a discussi
I have been following Pivot's dev list since August. My only concern involves
an incident where I posted a suggestion and was slapped down very hard by one
of the committers. If this had been my first exposure to the ASF I never would
have come back. That being said, I quickly got an offline ap
In general, Java code at Apache should reside under a package of org.apache. In
this case, I would expect org.apache.subversion.javahl. Of course, this will
create compatibility problems. I don't know if it is completely possible to
create a separate jar containing the necessary glue code to ma
On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:25 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> Java coding standard(s) makes very strong assertions that package
> names should be 'owned' domain names, to ensure avoidance of name
> collisions. Apache has maintained such for practically all projects,
> incl all incoming projects, and I a
On Nov 17, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> In general, Java code at Apache should reside under a package of
>>> org.apache. In this case, I would expect org.apache.s
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The Apache Pivot community feels that it is ready to graduate into the
> "Apache Pivot" top-level project.
>
> Please place your votes within the next 72 hours -- to serve as
> recommendations to the Board at the December Board meet
On Nov 17, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
> wrote:
>
>> As Hyrum suggests, we can use org.apache.subversion.* if we want to
>> create a new (better) Java interface within our versioning rules - but
>> that isn't necessary nor should
On Dec 31, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> As I said, we do not have a hard and fast rule on length of time,
>> but this "nebulous notion" is what makes the ASF work.
>
> If that were true the incubator would need to be completely reworked,
> because the process we use here is basi
On Dec 31, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> Getting back to the subject, my primary objection to what's being proposed is
> that
> commons should handle this as an ip clearance, not as a project incubation.
> If
> commons insists that the individuals in question have to submit patche
On Jan 19, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
> wrote:
>> PPMC and IPMC, please re-vote on the following regarding copyright issue
>> ESME-47.
>
>
>
>> 2. The Apache License block will be followed by a legacy comment (Onl
+1
Ralph
On Feb 11, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I started a discussion thread a week-ish ago to seek out issues for
> Subversion's graduation. The couple bits that were raised[1] have been
> handled, I believe. So with that said, I am unaware of any potential
> showstop
+1
Ralph
On Mar 4, 2010, at 1:18 AM, Gav... wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The Log4PHP community has voted [1] with 5 +1 votes and no other votes as
> follows, to graduate to become a sub-project of the Logging Project.
>
> * Gavin McDonald
> * Christian Hammers
> * Jim Jagielski
> * Jesus Christian (no
+1
Ralph
On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> The Portals PMC as Sponsor of the WSRP4J podling as well as the project
> community itself has voted [1,2] positive [3] to terminate the podling due to
> lack of interest to continue the project.
>
> I would like to call the Incubator P
1 - 100 of 254 matches
Mail list logo
