On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
Is this really necessary?
Yes.
The Board minutes, which include all reports, are formatted as plain text
every month.
^^
If you release as an Apache Incubator project, the disclaimer is required.
If you release as your prior project, with prior infra and procedures, then
no.
Note: you cannot release as an Incubator project unless you use Apache
procedures.
Cheers,
-g
On Nov 14, 2013 11:49 PM, P. Taylor Goetz
On Oct 3, 2013 12:52 PM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
e.g. how to vote properly
on personnel issues, and that should entirely suffice. Even Greg
doesn't seem to know what consensus voting means in this context,
Really, Joe? Why did you throw that in? I know what consensus
For committership, that is typical. Most PMCs allow a veto for adding
new members to the PMC.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Good Lord man all you need to add is a one-sentence
statement that personnel votes are consensus votes not
procedural
for branding of your podling.
Your MENTORS should have been helping with this :-(
Regards,
Greg Stein
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:06:45PM -0700, Shreepadma Venugopalan wrote:
The Apache Sentry team is happy to announce the release of Apache Sentry
1.2.0.
Apache Sentry is a system to enforce
of Apache Sentry.
It also has the required disclaimer. We'll be more diligent in the future.
Regards,
Shreepadma
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
ATTENTION
I have rejected this announcement from the annou...@apache.org list.
It does NOT clearly state
We already have a web interface to the voting (h/t Joe), but I bet
there is quite a bit more to what you're asking. We're pretty low on
dev time :-/ ...
Volunteers are certainly welcome! We've got some ideas in motion, but
can certainly use help.
Thx,
-g
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Marvin
Apache doesn't need to develop anything. But if there is a community that
wants to work on a project under the ASF umbrella, then the Foundation is
happy to help them.
Cheers,
-g
On Sep 2, 2013 11:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman jor...@jordanzimmerman.com
wrote:
Why does Apache need to develop this?
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Hey Marvin,
Did you get anywhere with this?
Finally, yes. I've written up the subject on the Incubator wiki and linked to
it from the proposal
proposal.
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 05:05, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
...
Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea
Not your bad. An obvious change based on discussion.
IMO, I say Marvin is being overly pedantic.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Marvin,
That change was agreed in the discuss thread. I failed to look to see if it
had been made before I called
Please don't apologize for a change that is proper and Right. In fact,
when you look at the *actual* change, it is awesome. It is a clear
benefit for the podling and project, and a demonstration of WSO2's
generosity around the trademarks that it has worked to build.
There should not be a need to
Speaking as a Director, the Board will need a *definition* of
probation. This is more than just a wiki page. I believe it needs to
be a page laid down in www.a.o/dev/ that defines the constraints laid
down upon a pTLP (I really like Ross' acronym there!). These
differences/constraints should
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
...
I propose we ensure that whatever we put before the board in July has
an alternative course of action that does not disenfranchise the IPMC
It is perfectly fine to disenfranchise the IPMC. It does not get a
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
...
Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea.
I see no problem whatsoever with the suggested pTLP reporting.
Let me throw out a hypothetical counterpoint here...
The Incubator gathers
On Jun 4, 2013 4:22 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Simple as that.
If only.
This is the old what goes in the NOTICE file debate that has
probably caused more emails and confusion than any other topic here
On Jun 4, 2013 9:40 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...
And this isn't some podling trying to figure shit out. This is some
Incubator tooling that has explicitly incorporated third party code. We
absolutely know
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:23 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2013 05:10, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
...
Apache Incubator tools
Copyright 2013 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:45 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I think that conflicts with the advice here:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
The last sentence says: Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not
legally required.
Being legal and being nice may not be
As I said, it does look good. But I don't see the LinkedIn Copyright
in any files under tools/. The copyright/license header should remain
in the files that you copied into our repos. It is impossible to tell
what is from LinkedIn.
Cheers,
-g
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Alan Cabrera
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:15 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2013 01:04, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:45 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I think that conflicts with the advice here:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
...
Apache Incubator tools
Copyright 2013 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
This distribution contains code from the
On a whole different direction, one way to scale is to shift from
Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would
effectively be a TLP on probation. The Champion, Mentors, and Board
would be providing oversight.
I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On May 7, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On a whole different direction, one way to scale is to shift from
Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would
effectively be a TLP
After you add a file (and before commit), you can use 'svn propset' to
set properties.
In addition, there are auto props in your personal configuration
file. If people in a group don't have the autoprops set similarly,
then your default props can (obviously) vary. Subversion 1.8 (*) will
provide
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
...
It all seemed very rushed. Perhaps we need a clearer schedule in advance.
A series of reminders go out via Marvin long in advance. And
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
...
On the other hand, since we're a volunteer organization, a better
message here would be that people *can* take responsibility, not that
they *should* do so. If there aren't enough people with enough free
cycles
It is not your job. You are one of many of the IPMC.
You also happen to be the liaison to the Board.
On Apr 9, 2013 9:39 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume that you will take that role for this thread.
Some people might claim that this is my job in general. However, my
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
...Chris proposes that this
committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
the
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
As I see it, the incubator as we have it is a mechanism for coping
with the lack of mentor commitment. As Ross often writes, it's easy to
say that Mentors *should* make this commitment, but mentors are
volunteers,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
...
I don't believe we should force an announce@ list on anybody. But I do
think it might be a good idea to mention a few of the standard lists that
projects might consider requesting.
No strong opinion. Generally, I don't
On Mar 9, 2013 9:06 PM, Branko Čibej br...@wandisco.com wrote:
On 10.03.2013 03:31, Greg Stein wrote:
I didn't sign it because I expected changes regarding graduation...
Well, given that the end of the graduation vote and the report deadline
coincide, I decided to just leave the report
%3E-
if so, just linking to the discussion is fine.
Kalle
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Joachim Dreimann jdreim...@apache.org
wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
- Joe
On 10 March 2013 02:30, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 (binding)
On Mar 9, 2013 6:32 PM, Gary Martin
Ollos rjol...@apache.org
* Mark Poole mpo...@apache.org
* Greg Stein gst...@apache.org
* Hyrum K. Wright hwri...@apache.org
* Jure Žitnik j...@apache.org
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Gary Martin
be appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache Bloodhound, to
serve
On Mar 1, 2013 8:33 PM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
I concur with Chris, and want to strengthen/meta the point. The
Incubator
should not be used for projects which are intended to become part
I concur with Chris, and want to strengthen/meta the point. The Incubator
should not be used for projects which are intended to become part of an
existing TLP. The Incubator *creates* Apache-style communities. But... Stop.
For these, we don't want a separate/new community. They are supposed to be
My concern is that we're looking at two new committers, rather than
a Curator community. Following normal Incubator work, Curator would
build a community for itself. But then we'd have a community
*distinct* from that of Zookeeper. And it really looks like this
should be part of Zookeeper itself
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Andrei Savu as...@apache.org wrote:
...
### Mailing lists
* provisionr-private
* provisionr-dev
* provisionr-user
A user list is not recommended for a new community. That only serves
to divide a limited number of people. Your users should be involved on
the
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com
wrote:
So isnt this similar to HCatalog which relying on Hive metadata service
that ends up as sub project of Apache Hive?
I was against having
to be in good shape the
actual
line by line podling reports are unimportant other than being the
outputs
of the incubator project.
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 13 Feb 2013 23:40, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 13, 2013 3:39 PM, Matt
Or... take the initiative.
At the Board level, the shepherds are the default liaison between the Board
and the PMC. But all Directors review all reports.
There is nothing which limits IPMC Members to review only the reports
assigned to them as shepherds.
Just start reviewing. Don't wait for
I will note, as Vice Chairman, I've performed shepherd assignments when
Doug was buried. (we have a handy script that I wrote long ago, after
starting the shepherd process; makes it easy to share the task)
Point is: maybe somebody who is familiar with the IPMC shepherd process
could step in and
On Feb 13, 2013 3:39 PM, Matt Franklin m.ben.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone feel inclined to communicate anything to the board except
'here's the usual podling-by-podling report'
Do any of the directors
On Jan 24, 2013 2:53 AM, Federico Strati fede.str...@gmail.com wrote:
...
The proposed idea is in its very early stage of conception, so any
discussion,
even if completely against it (but with good reasons), will be appreciated
as well as any pointer to related on going efforts in any project.
On Jan 24, 2013 5:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Federico Strati fede.str...@gmail.com
wrote:
...Maybe you may suggest me the appropriate forum as well
As you don't seem to have code or a community yet, and there was
For argument's sake, let's say two. That is the specified/recommended
minimum. Thus, the IPMC must contribute an additional +1. Thus, it can
totally block podling releases thru its laziness and inactivity.
Sounds broken.
-g
On Jan 23, 2013 5:22 PM, Dave Fisher w...@apache.org wrote:
How many
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Ryan Ollos ryan.ol...@wandisco.com wrote:
...
Please vote:
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Bloodhound 0.4
[ ] +0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package (please explain)
+1 (binding; Mentor)
On Jan 13, 2013 11:46 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Next down are the 'vice-chairs', currently known as the shepherds.
Each of these people is responsible for a group of projects, dispersed
across the reporting cycle. The shepherd, at least, tunes into the
reports, but
Looks good.
btw: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2013
On Dec 29, 2012 6:42 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com
Nobody should **EVER** revert another's commit.
That is a truly horrible suggestion. The original committer should
revise/revert. Nobody else.
-g
(sorry; tablet; abbreviated)
On Dec 21, 2012 8:12 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
My belief is that the policy changed a long
Well aware, thank you.
On Dec 1, 2012 12:39 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Hyrum and Greg,
The bloodhound project is trying to make a release. You gents are
listed as mentors. Could you please find the time to check out and
vote appropriately on their release?
--benson
+1 to release (IPMC, binding)
[ apologies for the extreme delay :-( ]
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Joachim Dreimann
joachim.dreim...@wandisco.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to request the beginning of the vote for the second release of
Apache Bloodhound in the incubator following the
Oh. Forgot one item: so the below is conditional on resolving: the
.md5 does not match the .tar.gz. (I did not examine the signature
(.asc) to see if it matches the .tar.gz)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 to release (IPMC, binding)
[ apologies
On Nov 14, 2012 2:13 PM, Alexander Broekhuis a.broekh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
2012/11/14 Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com
Oh. Forgot one item: so the below is conditional on resolving: the
.md5 does not match the .tar.gz. (I did not examine the signature
(.asc) to see if it matches
I've confirmed this discrepancy is the same as what Alexander
Broekhuis posted about, as noted in INFRA-5445.
So 0.2 is all good to go!!
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh. Forgot one item: so the below is conditional on resolving: the
.md5 does not match
Lame duck! Lame duck!
... oh, excuse me. ;-)
On Nov 12, 2012 7:47 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not installed yet :-) Jukka?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net
wrote:
Hi Benson / Jukka -
I'm waiting for my shepherd assignments.
Empirically, Model 1 did not work. That's been tried over the past ten years.
*shrug* ... whatever you want to do. I just wanted to speak up that
you appeared to be conflating the mentor and shepherd roles (as they
had been defined over the past couple months). If you *intend* to
combine them
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
...
1. A number of people think that all mentors should have been signing all
reports all along, so that changing the template as part of clarifying this
is not a big deal.
Sure. The mentors should be part of the
I've read this entire thread (whew!), and would actually like to throw out
a contrary position:
No signed keys.
Consider: releases come from the ASF, not a person. The RM builds the
release artifacts and checks them into version control along with hash
checksums. Other PMC members validate the
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
Greg Stein wrote on Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 19:44:30 -0400:
I've read this entire thread (whew!), and would actually like to throw out
a contrary position:
No signed keys.
Consider: releases come from the ASF
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Ian Holsman i...@holsman.com.au wrote:
On Oct 11, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
(assume secure Infrastructure)
That's a pretty big assumption isn't it?
Empirically, we've had break-ins, so we can assume it will happen
again. But now
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
Greg Stein wrote on Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 21:14:15 -0400:
...
My point is that our instructions to users don't really incorporoate
the notions of keys, and (thus) provide near-zero utility. For such
So, provide
On Sep 13, 2012 5:58 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Do you have a rough idea of how close you are to graduation in terms
of community diversity and activity? A brief look at list archives and
commit logs shows fairly active discussions (both on the list and on
the issue
On Aug 27, 2012 6:15 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm jumping in late to this discussion after returning from vacation.
To summarize my understanding:
* As Joe says, there's no problem with current OpenOffice releases.
Agreed.
* The project is looking for ways to
On Aug 27, 2012 9:57 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
...
But recall in all this that even when the PMC releases code, it is
signed by the individual RM, and not by the PMC itself.
Apache Subversion releases tend to have a half-dozen signatures. Thus, I'd
say they are signed by the
On Aug 25, 2012 9:46 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Of course, a discussion thread started here to solicit the IPMC's
opinion on graduation would be another matter entirely.
If Rob is representative of AOO, then no. They need more time to learn
about the ASF.
-g
Joe: that is what is being discussed. Blessed binaries.
Go back to Dennis' email for the need for these.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
WHAT PROBLEM? THERE IS NO PROBLEM HERE,
CURRENT POLICY FULLY COVERS WHAT AOO ACTUALLY
DOES. END OF DISCUSSION.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
...
Or if someone who cared sufficiently about this policy area took
ownership and proposed a wording of the policy, either as a Board
resolution, or on legal-discuss, and had that policy approved and
recorded via the ordinary
Rob: I believe it is rather foolish to argue that Roy is incorrect.
For starters, he wrote the Bylaws, and is well-versed in the intent of this
Foundation. Second, the Foundation policies take precedence over
third-party concepts, so whether you/OSI may define a binary as open source
is wholly
On Aug 20, 2012 5:06 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
...
-1
I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
release:
...
I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to
argue
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz twgo...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz twgo...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin
Just because some other podlings have released binary artifacts does
not mean AOO can base their entire release strategy on binaries.
As Marvin has said: source releases are the primary release mechanism.
Binaries are and should be a distant second.
I would also state that continuing to argue
On Aug 20, 2012 8:33 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I would also state that continuing to argue is symptomatic of a
failure to understand and integrate with the Foundation's thoughts on
the matter
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm playing catch-up and I'm a bit unclear on the argument -
Marvin said: If the podling believes that ASF-endorsed binaries are a hard
requirement,
then it seems to me that the ASF is not yet ready
Commit the content. Otherwise, we're just hand-waving.
On Aug 8, 2012 5:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi,
Like others, I'm not too happy with the current
http://incubator.apache.org/ content.
How about starting a new, minimal set of docs that are more
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:14 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
...
This looks similar to the Syncope release vote thats also happening
right now in that the source distribution includes things like JQuery
but doesn't mention that in the LICENSE file. I'm a bit surprised
people are
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:38 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Gosh i'm pretty sure we _don't_ allow things like (L)GPL dependencies
in Incubator releases, we allow them in the source in SVN but i don't
recall
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:38 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Gosh i'm pretty sure we _don't_ allow things like (L)GPL dependencies
in Incubator releases, we allow them in the source in SVN but i don't
recall any releases like that.
As I replied to Marvin, Apache Roller had a hard
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...
You can look at the archives back in 2006 when it was incubating. In
particular, there is one sent to private@incubator that I would refer
you to:
http
On Aug 6, 2012 7:07 PM, Gary Martin gary.mar...@wandisco.com wrote:
...
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours and therefore ends after 11pm
UTC on Thursday 9th August.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Bloodhound 0.1.0
[ ] +0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package (please
Jukka,
Your dates are incorrect. We intend to have a regular Board meeting on the
15th, and an abbreviated in-person meeting on the 28th.
Cheers,
Greg Stein
Director, ASF
On Jul 26, 2012 12:16 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The standard podling report deadline
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We've had a couple of other cases of also other shepherd's missing
their reviews. I've tried to cover up the best I can by reviewing and
at least classifying all reports on which no shepherd feedback is
seen, but
No worries, Simone. Not your issue at all.
The private@incubator.a.o list has recently seen a huge influx of voting
emails. I'm not surprised to see Jukka provide some guidance.
Cheers,
-g
On Jul 10, 2012 9:16 AM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Jukka,
it sounds like a good
+1 (binding)
On Jul 4, 2012 5:19 PM, Roger Schildmeijer schildmei...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The AWF community has voted to retire the project.
Following the retirement guide [1], I now call the Incubator PMC to vote
on confirming this decision. (Will be open for 72 hours).
[ ] +1 Retire
On Jul 2, 2012 11:20 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
From the SVN history it looks like there are quite a few of those others
who have done work on the code in the past, is there a reason they aren't
on
On Jul 2, 2012 12:45 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
...
I hope that someone can help me understand the current thinking about the
vibrant community aspect that seems to be a requirement for incubation/TLP
admission.
The underlying requirement is an open, inclusive, long-term
On Jun 28, 2012 3:26 AM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Sorry Rich, that extra information in the mailing lists section
cannot be parsed by Clutch. Perhaps move it to the News section.
Also, the tracker is the eventual ASF tracker that is intended.
There
On Jun 28, 2012 9:18 PM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Also, the tracker is the eventual ASF tracker that is intended.
There is no requirement to run the issue tracker on ASF hardware, so the
link to SF.net is just fine.
Ah
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
Hi,
We are proposing Allura to be admitted to the Apache Incubator, and would
like to request that the IPMC votes on this issue. The requisite 72 hours has
passed since the initial proposal.
The proposal may be found
On Jun 14, 2012 8:46 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/12, Gianugo Rabellino gian...@rabellino.it wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Kato is not an ASF project (yet), so wouldn't it just be rm'd rather
than
moving to the Attic
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Bloodhound required a little prodding to get their podling report done. The
project is still new to the incubator. Progress is being made.
Kato is not an ASF project (yet), so wouldn't it just be rm'd rather than
moving to the Attic?
On Jun 11, 2012 6:07 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Wearing the very small hat of shepherd, I write to start a discussion
of moving Kato to the attic.
The last sign of activity
On Jun 8, 2012 2:33 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
The individual involved is willing to
allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how
formal
the permission referred to in [1] must be.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
On 6/7/12 1:58 PM, Greg Reddin gred...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Incubator,
See the email below from Alex Harui. I need help figuring out what to do
here.
I'm not sure if Jeff was ever an employee of Macromedia or what the
full
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
On 6/7/12 3:00 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Should a project move non-ASF copyright notices from Apache source files to
the NOTICE file?
No. If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
move
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Greg Reddin gred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff doesn't have to do it himself: that's just deference to his
wishes and ensuring that we don't pre-suppose or get them wrong.
Ah, so there's no legal
401 - 500 of 842 matches
Mail list logo
