+1 (binding)
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 5:05 AM tison wrote:
> Hi Incubator
>
> Following the discussion [DISCUSS] Incubating Proposal of Fury [1], I
> am starting this official vote for the Fury project.
>
> Here is their proposal:
>
Is there any docco/comparison that we can read, comparing Fury to Apache
Thrift and Apache Avro?
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:01 AM tison wrote:
> Hi IPMC members,
>
> I would like to propose a new project to the ASF incubator - Fury.
>
> Fury[1] is a high-performance, multi-language, and
Tison: STOP cross-posting between private and public lists. You have been
advised to stop doing so once, and this is now TWICE. No more.
Regards,
Greg Stein
Infrastructure Administrator, ASF
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:01 AM tison wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thanks for your information!
The source archive/tarball includes a LICENSE and NOTICE which specifies
the license for that artifact. The individual files' header simply
reinforces that.
In some release artifacts, individual files have a slightly different
license (eg. a third-party MIT-licensed piece of source), which
Sheng Wu is correct. I was a Mentor for the Apache Fineract project. Never
read the dev@ list, never checked out the code. They graduated, and I
didn't join the PMC. But I happen to still be subscribed to their mailing
list to offer historical perspective/advice.
There are many ways to contribute
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:55 AM PJ Fanning wrote:
>...
> In some cases, the critical fix might be submitted to the fork first
> and it may be easier for the Lightbend team to cherry pick those cases
> than it is for the fork team to do the opposite.
>
Should an ALv2 fork arise *anywhere*[1],
Oh, sure. That totally works!
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:14 PM tison wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. Is "5 IPMC members" correct also? "5 members
> of the IPMC" is a bit wordy, though.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
>
> Greg St
I have a problem with the terminology some people are using:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:28 PM tison wrote:
>...
> 3. The proposal wants to run this podling with 5 IPMCs,
There is ONLY ONE IPMC. aka the Incubator Project Management Committee.
ONE.
IPMC refers to the committee.
The use of
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:24 AM Dominik Riemer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we used the "transfer repository" feature when we were transferring
> StreamPipes to the incubator, which worked smoothly.
> Infra performs the transfer upon request, the only requirement is that you
> are able to add someone from
Branches for a purpose are appropriate.
Avoiding that tool/feature, and (say) using distinct repositories is a
version control anti-pattern.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021, 03:59 Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 6:39 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
> > ...In Pelican we
+0 to retire (binding)
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 7:32 AM Sheng Wu wrote:
> Hi IPMC
>
> This is an official vote for retiring the BlueMarlin from the incubator.
> We had several discussion about this
> - general@incubator,
>
>
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021, 01:36 Weiwei Yang wrote:
>...
> we can communicate with Microsoft about giving the Apache
> repo some extra resources.
> I guess it won't be a big problem to such a wealthy company
>
Their wealth does not mean they can give us anything we want. That is a
fallacy. Their
Yeah, sorry about the intrusion. Infra took a quick workaround, but we'll
fix our tools instead, for the next time. Won't happen again.
Regards,
Greg
InfraAdmin, ASF
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 3:53 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
> No, why? Please revert this.
>
> Please discuss with the Petri PMC.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:11 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> I guess given it's a recent change, not all projects projects are aware of
> it or have made the changes yet. This change means most podling download
> pages would need to change and I assume most TLP as well.
>
> As /dist has been
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 1:01 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Also I assume https://archive.apache.org/dist/ is still valid for older
> releases?
>
Yes.
Please stop trimming emails so much. Do you spend extra time just deleting
context? Makes for a lot of extra work. So manually cut/paste your
Good work, Justin. One small comment:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 7:57 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> if not href.startswith('https://www.apache.org/dist/')
> and not href.startswith('https://archive.apache.org/dist'):
> print("Please change link to " + href + "
IMO, involuntary mailing list subscription is not the right choice. ...
Just take your list of AWOL non-responders to the Board, and ask if there
are any objections to placing them on a "removal" resolution for the
February meeting. The Board may provide some guidance/steps to take. Or
they may
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 9:10 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 16, 2020, at 6:56 PM, Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>
>...
> > In the case of people asking to be removed from the IPMC, they are
> removed from the roster, this is reported in the next Incubator board
>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 9:59 AM Nathan Hartman
wrote:
>...
> This should be documented clearly under expectations from IPMC members. If
> there is a period of inactivity after which IPMC members will be removed,
> then people should know this up front.
>
Only the Board can remove members from a
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:41 AM Trevor Grant
wrote:
> @Greg, I would echo Ning's point.
>
I saw Ning's post before my own response, and (frankly) have little
sympathy. Email exists to ask questions and solve problems. "I can't get
subscribed. Please help" is very easy to send. If a member of
In the past, I've made my position clear: if an IPMC member cannot be
bothered to get themselves subscribed to the private list, then they are
not providing appropriate oversight, and (thus) should be removed from the
PMC. They can continue to contribute via the general@ list, but lose their
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:30 PM 俊平堵 wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> The [DISCUSS] thread on NuttX has died down.
>
>
> Accordingly, I would like to call a VOTE to accept NuttX into the
>
> Apache Incubator.
>
>
> Please cast your vote:
>
>
> [ ] +1, bring NuttX into the Incubator
>
>
I say just move to a vote and stop the second-guessing. GNutt seems
on-board. Let them get their stuff done.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Alex Harui wrote:
> Might be less risk and disruption for a few experienced ASF folks to go
> "live amongst" the NuttX folks where they are now and verify
The initial five works for me. I see no reason to add more at this time. It
would only be a block for graduation, not inception.
To rephrase: some may have an issue with five, but I bet you'll get enough
+1 votes as-is.
Cheers,
-g
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:39 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote:
> I think
ld require some discussion with infra to see what’s possible here.
>
> If it is not possible to automate this, then changes originated from old
> retiring Bitbucket could be handled as normal PRs. That is not unusual.
>
The Apache Infrastructure team has no tooling to synchronize with
third
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 11:38 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
>...
> It would help if the initial committer list was greater than the bare
> minimum of three. Three PPMC members is not enough. There needs to be at
> least five committers to start.
>
Read the thread in its entirety, please. It has already
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 2:41 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> HI,
>
> > should these go to commits@incubator, rather than general@ ?
>
> I just filter to the same mail folder, but happy to have that change
> happen. Do I need to raise a JIRA or can you do it?
>
Infra requests a [thread] link to
should these go to commits@incubator, rather than general@ ?
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:09 PM GitBox wrote:
> justinmclean merged pull request #53: bold table title and fix footer
> spacing
> URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator/pull/53
>
>
>
>
>
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 5:16 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> There is a possible alternative and that is to not have a incubating area
> and have all projects just use /dist/dev/ and
> /dist/release/. That way no clean up would be needed. The
> releases still have incubator disclaimers and are
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:18 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Ha! The Infra team was just talking about that today, with the retirement
> > of Edgent and (cleanup of) Zipkin. Over the years, we've had mixed
> signals
> > about what to do with "Incubator releases" after a podling leaves the
>
Ha! The Infra team was just talking about that today, with the retirement
of Edgent and (cleanup of) Zipkin. Over the years, we've had mixed signals
about what to do with "Incubator releases" after a podling leaves the
Incubator. Some have said "keep them; they are IPMC releases", or "they
should
We're trying to do better on what services are available, so consider this
"step one" :-)
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:19 PM Julian Feinauer
wrote:
> Thanks Greg, I didn't know that!
>
> Julian
>
> Am 07.11.19, 19:24 schrieb "Greg Stein" :
>
>
> https
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/Distribution+via+the+Apple+App+Store
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM Greg Stein wrote:
> An app signed by the Foundation is most definitely associated with the
> ASF. The Foundation has an Apple Developer Account for exactly this
An app signed by the Foundation is most definitely associated with the ASF.
The Foundation has an Apple Developer Account for exactly this reason.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:17 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A binary convenance release needs to be created from released voted on
> code. [1]
>
Generally/all: please stick to committers ... NOT confluence-users. The
latter will bring down the spam.
Thx,
Greg
InfraAdmin, ASF
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:40 AM Myrle Krantz wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I just checked the Weex report for October, and while doing so, I realized
> that I do not have
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 06:00 Julian Feinauer
wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> I think Justins Answer refers to the WIP-Disclaimer
Aware of that, but disagree. It is way more: the IPMC vote is performed to
establish legal oversight and shield. I suggest that is burdensome and
should be tossed.
PS.: Allow
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 22:31 David Nalley wrote:
>...
> Greg - I propose that you, Ross (sorry for volunteering you), and I
> pick an incubating project in need of mentor attention and make this
> as streamlined as we can. Let's focus on educating and enabling and
> not gatekeeping. Let's prove
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 00:33 Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Q: Does the IPMC want to produce non-ASF releases?
>
> A: We already are
Not true, as you well know. Whether we call the above a lie, or
misdirection is left to the reader.
The IPMC currently attempts to ensure all podling releases
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:17 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Hoops constructed by the IPMC. Like a secondary release vote on general@
>
> This is because of ASF bylaws i.e only PMC votes are binding on releases.
That is not in the Bylaws. Stop making stuff up.
> So you're saying
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:10 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Here's an idea... The IPMC focuses on supporting mentors to do their job
> rather than forcing project developers and their mentors to jump through
> arbitrarily defined hoops.
>
> What "arbitrarily defined hoops” are you referring
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:26 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I will also note that if the IPMC switches to *voting* Members into the
> > IPMC, that the Apache Member will be observing that vote take place on
> > private@ through a subscription (they can reply!) or via the archives. …
>
>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:04 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Current any ASF member can come along and ask to join the IPMC. I assume
> this was put in place for two reasons: ( but don’t know the full history
> behind it)
> - There was a lack of mentors.
> - Is is assumed that if you are an
more reasons to back off and
let podlings get their work done.
Cheers,
-g
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 7:46 PM Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:32 AM Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > I see no problem with using our infrastructure to distribute F/O
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:32 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I see no problem with using our infrastructure to distribute F/OSS
> > materials. Why would the Foundation want to be against that? If it is
> > labeled properly, then ... roll with it.
>
> It often isn’t labelled properly.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 5:29 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote: (dunno why Justin keeps trimming sources for his quotes...)
> > Option (F): stop calling them official ASF releases, which means PMC
> votes
> > are not required.
>
> In that case voting would not be required and they
Option (F): stop calling them official ASF releases, which means PMC votes
are not required.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:04 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of the incubator pain points is the double voting on releases first by
> the podling and then by the IPMC.
>
> Historically there been
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 12:09 AM leerho wrote:
> Hello Apache general@incubator community.
>
> 1. This is a call for vote to release Apache DataSketches-memory version:
> 1.0.0-incubating-RC2
>
> NOTE 1: This is one component of the DataSketches library which needs to be
>
+1 (binding)
(also, again, registering my dispute with needs for IPMC votes)
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 6:19 AM 王乾元 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Apache Weex community has voted and approved the proposal to release
> Apache Weex (Incubating) version 0.26.0-RC2.
> We now kindly request the Incubator PMC
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:35 PM Alex Harui wrote:
> Suggestion: The DISCLAIMER references a detached copy of the DISCLAIMER
> at dist.a.o/releases/incubator/project and that detached copy is the one
> that gets updated with late breaking stuff.
>
> Re-rolling required re-GPG-signing, new hashes,
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:07 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Or we *don't* provide legal protections. That *is* what the disclaimer is
> > there for.
>
> For that to happen I think the disclaimer text would need to change, I’m
> assuming you don’t think that. Even so a DISCLAIMER doesn’t
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:10 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> Hi,
>
> > Although not a "real" PMC, we do need to provide legal protection for
> each PPMC and distributing releases is the time that most legal
> considerations "kick in" as it were. So we need a
Or we *don't* provide legal
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:55 PM Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Dave Fisher wrote on Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:28 -0700:
> > > On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 1:39 AM Justin Mclean <
>
contents,
or lack of rules. Infra just wants it placed into our distribution system
in a specific way, to ensure correctness, auditing, and resilience.
VP Infra has already stated the above. As an Officer of Infrastructure, I
concur and reiterate that position.
Regards,
Greg Stein
InfraAdmin, ASF
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:57 AM Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:13 AM Justin Mclean >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > b) It listed as a TLP in Whimsy
> >
> > Whimsy is no
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 4:29 PM Craig Russell wrote:
>...
> No. Smiley face doesn't count.
>
Apparently you missed the point when Justin did that to me. Hmm?
Of course it doesn't count. Why don't you go police th VP Incubator, okay?
-g
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:13 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Which would be a reasonable assumption give:
> > a) That only IPMC votes are binding on releases.
>
Only because IPMC said it must provide such votes. I maintain it does not
have to. The Board gave the Incubator the range/duty
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:34 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I see a lot of "oh no. a bad file". What is the takeaway from that? "The
> > IPMC thinks we should not release.”
>
> Has anyone voted -1? Nope. And even if they did a -1 vote is not a veto.
>
Great. Semantics. "But I didn't
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 5:03 AM Antoine Toulme wrote:
> Hi all,
> The Tuweni community voted on and has approved a proposal to release
> Tuweni 0.8.0. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
> Policy and we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator
> PMC
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:35 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> This sort of language is not helpful. Nor do I think it is accurate. Can
> you please take more care with your words.
>
I feel it is accurate. And it is not directed at anybody. Only at this
process. It is descriptive, and my carefully
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:15 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> This comment by Craig is the most important one in the discussion.
>
> When the first words that people pick when disagreeing are essentially
> personal insults, what is going on is better described as mud wrestling
> rather than discussion.
>
Insanity.
Just let Tuweni make a release, already. Stuff like this will get fixed
eventually.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:46 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > It may not be clear to you, but it was discussed in the earlier vote
> thread. See
>
d [1] is 13 years old. Not even sure how that enters into the
conversation, unless you want to take Roy's advice and move Incubator in
the direction it seems people want: relax release workflow. Get the IPMC
out of the process/voting.
Regards,
Greg Stein
InfraAdmin, ASF
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:55 PM Davor Bonaci wrote:
> I wouldn't say that there are 2 camps. The IPMC seems to be overwhelmingly
> in the "2nd camp", with its desire to be lenient with the releases and
> rules.
>
I disagree. I see a number of people who think that podling releases are
+1 to 2nd camp.
And even less requirements than have been suggested, I would offer. For
example: if the tarball is missing a LICENSE or NOTICE file? Who cares.
It's still a legal release. Just hard for downstream users to consume. But
they *can*. Nothing stopping somebody from trying out the
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:33 AM Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Greg Stein wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:23 AM Myrle Krantz wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke
> wrote:
>
> > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised for
> > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP.
> > The mission states: "We do this by
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:14 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:17 AM Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only co
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:02 PM Alex Harui wrote:
>...
> To close with Justin's bread analogy: A bread maker that just says "just
> add yeast and flour and water, kneed, let rise and bake" and then makes you
> toss out the results and start over is not going to attract nearly as many
> students
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:14 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:13 AM Greg Stein wrote:
> > ...Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC...
>
> IMO something that can help fix that is dec
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
>
> Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus.
A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no"
outcome. Thus, it is specious on its
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi David and Greg,
>
> > On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>
>...
> > BTW in all previous cases of podlings exiting I could find, a vote was
> taken (see below links and there’s more I’ve not listed). In most cases
> this
+1 (binding)
(and IMO this vote should never have been needed/called; let's help them,
rather than hinder)
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:22 PM Sheng Wu wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> PPMC have voted.[1], carried
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 18:57 Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Boring imo. You have to try hard to screw up Cat B (though I’ve seen it
> > done).
>
> Really? Category B source code is generally not allowed in sources
> releases. It's actually Category X. Category B as image and the like is
>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 02:47 Alex Harui wrote:
> Maybe the next question is: Are all release policy violations
> showstoppers? I suspect the answer is no. And thus, if any TLP can punt
> release policy violations to a future release,
What are you talking about?
Nobody has suggested any
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:15 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It’s a pity that the people who are strongly for this position, don’t seem
> to actually want to be involved in helping out, but just want to discuss
> and tell the people actually doing the work are going the wrong way about
>
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 8:27 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> Hi,
>
> > It takes a new mindset. What is the *bare* minimum MUST? Two items?
> > maaaybe three?
>
> Given this is probably a radical departure, would it be best to do as an
> experiment with a couple of podlings? Small reversible
The entire note below sounds like "business as usual. we haven't learned
anything."
Release offsite is not a solution, IMO. I believe it is Best(tm) to have a
DISCLAIMER.txt in the incubator/$podling/release/ directory, and "podling
releases" which do not meet our normal policies for TLPs. I
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
This has happened before. We just say "thanks, and good luck". Most recent
was odftoolkit, I believe. They moved to The Document Foundation. We
transferred a related domain over TDF, for that community to use.
Note that we've also stated that if a trademark is transferred to us
*during*
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:12 PM Adrian Cole wrote:
>...
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin/issues/2544
That is pretty damned awesome.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:08 AM Hen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:53 Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hen wrote:
> > >...
> > > * Incubating releases are Apache releases.
> >
> > That is demonstrably not true, as (historical
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:54 PM Craig Russell wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:24 PM Craig Russell
> wrote:
> >
> >>> On Jun 3, 2019, at 2:33 PM, Justin Mclean
> >> wrote:
> >>
&
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:24 PM Craig Russell wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2019, at 2:33 PM, Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>
>...
> > I agree, but if you read the disclaimer is says nothing about releases,
> perhaps that needs to change?
>
> Yes, I'd like to change the disclaimer to state that releases cannot
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hen wrote:
>...
> * Incubating releases are Apache releases.
>
That is demonstrably not true, as (historically) the Incubator has made
releases with GPL'd code in them (eg. Hibernate).
Cheers,
-g
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
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
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
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 3:43 AM sebb wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 09:00, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:33 AM sebb wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 02:59, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 2:36 AM
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:33 AM sebb wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 02:59, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 2:36 AM Justin Mclean
> > wrote:
> > >...
> >
> > > No one should be subscribed to the private list other than mentors,
> P
Yeup. Infra transfers repositories all the time. Just file an INFRA ticket
specifying which repositories are to be transferred, and their new names.
There are a couple approaches to perform the transfer, and that can be
worked out in the ticket.
Cheers,
Greg Stein
Infrastructure Administrator
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 2:36 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> No one should be subscribed to the private list other than mentors, PPMC
> members and ASF members (who can subscribe to any private list).
>
Strictly speaking, a (P)PMC may have invited guests subscribed to their
private@ list. This
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 6:27 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
>...
> In this case, the text format predated the agenda tool. To date, a
> design constraint has been to continue to allow the text format be
> edited directly (and many of us still find that to be convenient at
> times).
>
One data point: yes,
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 12:41 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> - What the situation with https://netbeans.org website?
> >
> > That question is too open-ended. What is your concern?
>
> No specific concern other than a general branding one. It’s slightly
> unusual for a podling to graduate
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:14 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>...
> - What the situation with https://netbeans.org website?
>
That question is too open-ended. What is your concern?
Cheers,
-g
Totally agreed with Julian here.
Community growth is one of the hardest aspects of a healthy, Apache
community. It is a never-ending and always-needed process. Shutting out
paths to growth, or partitioning where/how people might participate in the
community is a clear yellow flag. Reach out and
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:11 PM Julian Hyde wrote:
> Most of the projects mentioned so far have been “internal”
Only because all the umbrella-derived projects haven't been mentioned. Most
of that "spin out to a TLP" was done a decade ago, so they've been omitted
from discussion.
> - code
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 7:43 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Actually, it is pretty easy to tell. The bottom of the resolution will
> say
> > something like "". Compare Royale[1] (with a discharge of
> responsibilities)
> > compared to Serf[2].
>
> Perhaps?
>
> Royale has:
> "RESOLVED, that
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 7:06 AM Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:57 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> >...
>
>> there. The board resolutions don’t make it clear if it’s straight TLP or
>> not from what I can see
>
>
> Actually, it is pretty easy to t
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:57 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
>...
> there. The board resolutions don’t make it clear if it’s straight TLP or
> not from what I can see
Actually, it is pretty easy to tell. The bottom of the resolution will say
something like "". Compare Royale[1] (with a discharge of
1 - 100 of 842 matches
Mail list logo
