On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 6:50 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Point me to where you are not allowed to make non-official podling
> releases
> > that conform to Incubator policy.
>
> I find that hard to parse and perhaps you meant don’t conform to incubator
> policy? But either way it’s not
Hi,
The other though that occurred to me is if we do this, are the people involved
covered by ASF’s legal shield? i.e Does it pass the clean line mentioned in [1].
"Deviations from this policy may have an adverse effect on the legal shield's
effectiveness, or the insurance premiums Apache pays
Hi,
It’s good to see some podling have added their logos, but we’re still missing a
few.
Missing logo are:
amaterasu
annotator
batchee
brpc
datasketches
dlab
flagon
gobblin
hudi
omid
pinot
s2graph
samoa
sdap
tuweni
tvm
weex
zipkin
With some conferences coming up there's going to be stickers
Hi,
Mentors don’t forget your podlings reports are due on Wednesday.
Still to report are:
BRPC
Daffodil
DataSketches
DLab
Druid
Hivemall
Iceberg
IoTDB
Marvin-AI
Milagro
Myriad
Nemo
Omid
OpenWhisk
PonyMail
SAMOA
SINGA
Spot
Superset
Taverna
Tephra
Tuweni
Warble
Zipkin
Thanks,
Justin
HI,
> For example it would help heaps if there was a list of violations podling
> releases make, and which are immediate showstoppers
That is fairly well documented and these issues consistently get -1 in release
votes, they are (off the top of my head):
- Missing incubating from name
-
Hi,
> Point me to where you are not allowed to make non-official podling releases
> that conform to Incubator policy.
I find that hard to parse and perhaps you meant don’t conform to incubator
policy? But either way it’s not incubators policy, it’s the boards and infra
policy.
I think that
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 4:14 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> > release policy to something that **is not a Foundation release**
>
> But don’t these releases become foundation releases when the IPMC vote on
> them?
>
Why should they? The vote is to make a podling release.
> They do not need to
Hi,
> It is always best to handle at the PMC-level first, rather than skipping
> from community discussion straight to the Board.
I 100% agreed.
> I believe the key issue is that you're attempting to apply the Foundation's
> release policy to something that **is not a Foundation release**
But
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 12:02 AM wrote:
> HI,
>
> > Before putting it to the board, have we ever had a IPMC vote on the
> matter?
>
> Sure if you think one is needed, but probably best to have some discussion
> about it first.
>
It is always best to handle at the PMC-level first, rather than
