Interesting read, Denis, although there's more shades in it than SDtimes can
be aware about.
Dima, I was referring to this blog-post
https://www.datastax.com/2016/10/take-a-bow-planet-cassandra
but has posted a link to this very thread instead. THanks for catching that!
Cos
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:33PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> This might be a link that is related to the topic
> http://sdtimes.com/apache-foundation-board-reining-datastax/
> <http://sdtimes.com/apache-foundation-board-reining-datastax/>
>
> Good case so far.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Cos, this link is wrong.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Konstantin I Boudnik <c...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This blog post from DataStax [1] has reminded me of the conversation we
> >> had during the incubation on how to model community web-sites and how
> >> "Planet Cassandra" is doing this. Evidently, after years of the
> >> explanations and the deliberations, DataStax had finally came to their
> >> senses and stopped this violation of the Apache Cassandra trademark once
> >> and for all.
> >>
> >> [1] https://is.gd/DBrGHB
> >>
> >> Cos
> >>
> >> On 2015-03-13 03:54 (+0300), Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Henry, Brane,
> >>>
> >>> I completely see your points and agree. I actually finally had some time
> >>> today to look into this and will be removing the link shortly. However,
> >>> although I want to comply with ASF rules, I truly believe that having a
> >>> downloadable binary at all times increases usability and popularity of
> >> the
> >>> project.
> >>>
> >>> With that in mind, I have asked GridGain to host the download link of
> >>> Apache Ignite community edition in the mean time, granted that it will be
> >>> made clear to the users and the community that it is not an official
> >> Apache
> >>> release. This approach is also taken by Datastax with their
> >> planetcassandra
> >>> portal, http://planetcassandra.org/try-cassandra/, perhaps for similar
> >>> reasons. Once we have a legitimate release candidate, we will revert back
> >>> to the normal download process.
> >>>
> >>> I should be able to set this up within a couple of days.
> >>>
> >>> D.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I agree. Please do remove the RC1 download links.
> >>>>
> >>>> The main reasons of any project need to be in incubator when joining
> >>>> ASF is to make sure that the community know how to develop in the
> >>>> Apache way.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am hoping that you do not guess or believe that things should work
> >>>> as you think it is.
> >>>>
> >>>> ALL initial committers please read and understand how to release
> >>>> documentation [1] and document about being ASF committer [2]
> >>>>
> >>>> What we are expecting from the new PPMCs are please try to understand
> >>>> how ASF work and do not just do things based what you already knew.
> >>>> When in doubt you can look at Apache websites or ask mentors in dev@
> >>>> list or even go to incubator general@ list.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html
> >>>> [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> On 10.03.2015 22:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >>>>>> Brane,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The RC1 was a legitimate Ignite release candidate as it was
> >> submitted
> >>>> for a
> >>>>>> vote. Please let us know if there are certain documented guidelines
> >> here
> >>>>>> that we are not aware of.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's all documented here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Specifically, this is written *in bold* on that page:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do not include any links on the project website that might
> >> encourage
> >>>>> non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots,
> >>>>> release candidates, or any other similar package.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is fine to call a specific package a "release candidate" and even
> >>>>> publish is as an ASF release under that name, but in the case of
> >>>>> Ignite's RC1 and RC2, these are /not/ official releases because they
> >>>>> have not been approved as such by the PPMC and IPMC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Moreover, this RC1 zip archive provides users with the ability to
> >> kick
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> tires with Apache Ignite ahead of time, before the official 1.0
> >> release
> >>>> is
> >>>>>> out. I am not sure how removing it serves either community or user
> >> base
> >>>> of
> >>>>>> the Ignite project.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then tell people how to fetch a tag or specific commit from the git
> >>>>> repository, or simply how to clone a read-only (possibly shallow)
> >> copy.
> >>>>> It definitely doesn't serve the Ignite community or user base to post
> >>>>> confusing links to the web site.//
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As a side note, we already have addressed all RC2 issues and are a
> >>>> couple
> >>>>>> of days away from sending out RC3 for a vote, which will most likely
> >>>> become
> >>>>>> an official Apache Ignite 1.0 release. It will be easier to just
> >> switch
> >>>> one
> >>>>>> zip archive with another when that happens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You must realize that our release policy is not arbitrary and is
> >> driven
> >>>>> by legal requirements. Even if RC3 is perfect, it will take at least
> >> a
> >>>>> week to approve (vote on dev@ must run at least 72 hours, and the
> >> same
> >>>>> again for the IPMC vote), so that's an extra week of confusing users
> >> and
> >>>>> violating ASF policies. Please remove the download link because I
> >> really
> >>>>> don't want to do that myself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While we're on the topic of RC3, I've been trying to send my
> >> comments on
> >>>>> RC2 twice to this list in the last couple days, but apparently they
> >>>>> haven't come through ... I'll try again, hope for the best.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- Brane
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
