Hi,
BTW I think this points out one of the dangers of possible over reliance of
using scripts to check releases. In case the issue is minor but sometimes it
won’t be.
Some issues need a human to check for, unless perhaps we go down the SPDX path
and/or structure the license data in a way
Hi,
+1 (binding)
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashed match
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE isn’t correct as it points to two MIT licensed files but they don’t
seem to exist
- NOTICE is fine
- Several files are missing ASF headers
- No unexpected binary files
- can compile from
Hi,
+1 (binding)
- incubator in name
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE fine
- Some source files don’t have ASF headers
- Some source files have incorrect ASF headers
- No unexpected binary in file
- Can compile from source
I note this release contains a couple of minor issues that have
Hi,
Some of the answer be be obvious here to someone who works on the project, and
already been discussed and sorted on your mailing list. So apologies if that
the case, I’m not involved with your project, so I’m just asking to get clarity.
A google search turns up mention of “IBM OpenWhisk”
Hi,
I also note that you’ve been given feedback on several releases that have had
mirror issue, but the issues don’t seem to have been fixed. Is there a plan to
do so before graduation? e.g [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1.
I have a question below.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 7, 2019, at 6:37 PM, Rodric Rabbah wrote:
>
> The PMC has individuals from 6 unrelated companies. I think committers add
> another 2 unrelated companies/entities. We expect to welcome new committers
> after graduation.
>
> -r
>
>> On
The PMC has individuals from 6 unrelated companies. I think committers add
another 2 unrelated companies/entities. We expect to welcome new committers
after graduation.
-r
> On Jun 7, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I have looked at the contributor distributions as
Hi,
> 1) Is it legal to include GPL licensed software in releases? The
> answer is yes... as long as we comply with the terms of that license.
> In the case of strong copyleft licenses, that could mean that the
> podling release itself may need also be GPL licensed.
And in cases where this has
Hi,
> My understanding as an IPMC member is that there are some items in a release
> that can be allowed where they would not be in a TLP release. These things
> have historically drawn -1 votes from IPMC members.
Historically we have allowed such releases and they got +1 votes. If you look
Hi,
> IMO, it all comes down to the definition of "serious issues". Some say that
> the only real blockers should be legal issues about the right to distribute
> some IP.
Once way to define it would be to say any reason that a TLP release is likely
to get a -1 vote on.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> I have looked at the contributor distributions as follows:
>
> - 91 individuals with 1 commit.
> - 24 individuals with 2 commits.
> - 9 individuals with 3 commits.
> - 16 individuals with 4 commits.
> - 30 individuals with 5 or more commits (and fewer than 10).
> - 22 individuals with 10
IMO, there could be several kinds of scenarios under the category of "copyright
violations". Such as:
1) Taking something under someone else's copyright and claiming it under a
different copyright.
2) No mention of the copyright or the entity owning the IP at all anywhere in
the release
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:39 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:46 AM Justin Mclean
> wrote:
> > ...The proposal can be found in the draft board report. [1]...
>
> If I was on the Board I don't think I would accept making releases
>
blah blah "legal risk" blah blah.
Really. Let's step back and consider what we're talking about. A podling
making a release as they learn the ropes of Apache-style governance. With a
disclaimer.
"OMG! There is GPL code in there!" ... no legal risk. We only care about
GPL from a policy
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:00 PM Craig Russell wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> As a board member, I'm not comfortable with granting a blanket exception to
> policy that might put us at legal risk.
>
> As an IPMC member, I think that we do not want to allow podlings to release
> material that might put
Hi Justin,
As a board member, I'm not comfortable with granting a blanket exception to
policy that might put us at legal risk.
As an IPMC member, I think that we do not want to allow podlings to release
material that might put us at legal risk. I do think that the IPMC under
today's policy
There's a bit of discussion that can happen (and sometimes does) on
the issue trackers which provide a bit more interactive yet
asynchronous method of communication. The Slack activity is almost
comparable to general chit chat at ApacheCon hackathons or similar.
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 11:36,
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:36 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote:
> ...I don't have a diversity profile per employer. I can try to gather that. Do
> you have a suggestion for the easiest way to do this? Maybe infra has some
> tools?...
Note that the ASF doesn't require people to disclose their company or
Hi Justin, thanks for your email.
I have looked at the contributor distributions as follows:
- 91 individuals with 1 commit.
- 24 individuals with 2 commits.
- 9 individuals with 3 commits.
- 16 individuals with 4 commits.
- 30 individuals with 5 or more commits (and fewer than 10).
- 22
On 6/7/2019 12:09 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> ... I would urge you to see the lengthy thread on the matter...
> I won't - if the proposal implies disclaimers, tickets etc. those
> conditions should be included in the
IMO, it all comes down to the definition of "serious issues". Some say that
the only real blockers should be legal issues about the right to distribute
some IP.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 6/7/19, 8:29 AM, "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
On 6/7/2019 11:26 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:29 PM Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>... I would urge you to see the lengthy thread on the matter...
I won't - if the proposal implies disclaimers, tickets etc. those
conditions should be included in the proposal, such that a single URL
provides all the required
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:44 PM David P Grove wrote:
> ...We now ask IPMC members to review this release candidate and vote
> accordingly...
+1, verified as follows:
./rcverify.sh openwhisk-apigateway 'OpenWhisk API Gateway' 0.10.0-incubating rc2
rcverify.sh (script SHA1: 6871 208F 37F8 2352
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:37 AM James Thomas wrote:
> ...This is a call for vote to release Apache OpenWhisk Runtime Node.js
> v1.14.0 (incubating) ...
+1, verified as follows:
./rcverify.sh openwhisk-runtime-nodejs 'OpenWhisk Runtime Node.js'
1.14.0-incubating rc2
rcverify.sh (script SHA1:
On 6/7/2019 11:26 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:22 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
>> ...I assume from your response that you disagree with the proposal or want
>> it modified? If so how?...
> I don't think it's reasonable to allow releases with "serious" issues.
> But let's
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:22 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...I assume from your response that you disagree with the proposal or want it
> modified? If so how?...
I don't think it's reasonable to allow releases with "serious" issues.
But let's see what the Board thinks.
-Bertrand
Hi,
> Maybe I missed the discussion - what I would find acceptable is making
> releases with minor issues, which are documented as such.
Which we currently allow, but several people have suggested that we allow more
than this this. There has been no objection to that as long as the board is in
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:46 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...The proposal can be found in the draft board report. [1]...
If I was on the Board I don't think I would accept making releases
"with serious issues in them" as mentioned there.
Maybe I missed the discussion - what I would find
Hi all:
I have to cancel the vote of Apache Doris 0.10.0-incubating-rc02 release
because of some license of third-party dependencies do not compatible with
Apache License Version 2.0
The Doris team will fix these issues and release again.
Thank you.
> 在 2019年6月3日，下午2:26，陈明雨 写道：
>
> Hi all,
Hi,
Congratulations. That’s pne of the most comprehensive maturity reports I’ve
seen.
I would be interested is seeing some details of:
- Diversity of current committers in who they work for
- Same for the proposed PMC (if that's been decided?)
- There seems to be a heavy reliance on
I think the wiki is messing stuff up. I noticed the wiki moved parts
around when I was signing off on a report. I ended up with gibberish moved
from another part of the report and had to fix it.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 01:56 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I saw the formatting change while I was editing. I
Hi,
As suggested I’ve collated information from several threads and turned it into
a proposal for the board. Any edits, feedback, agreement, disagreement etc etc
is welcome. In particular it would be nice to hear some feedback from people
who are in favour of this.
Note that this is
32 matches
Mail list logo
