[ANNOUNCE] Apache Slider 0.70.1-incubating release
The Apache Slider team is proud to announce Apache Slider incubation release version 0.70.1-incubating. Apache Slider (incubating) is a YARN application which deploys existing distributed applications on YARN, monitors them, and makes them larger or smaller as desired - even while the application is running. The release artifacts are available at: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/slider/0.70.1-incubating/ To use these artifacts, please use the following documentation: http://slider.incubator.apache.org/docs/getting_started.html We would like to thank all the contributors that made the release possible. Regards, The Slider Team
Re: junior Mentor request advice from senior Mentor.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: Not sure what are the licenses of the libs in question, so please refer to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html if in doubt. * zlib1 -- Zlib license * libxml2 -- MIT license * GNU libiconv -- LGPL * SDL -- Zlib license * SDL_Image -- Zlib license And Brane's suggestion would work in any case, even with (L)GPL bits. Hosting it outside and letting developers/users to pull them in on their own is pretty much bullet-proof. It's not quite bulletproof in the case of libraries. Optional LGPL libraries and GPL build tools, yes. Optional GPL libraries, it depends. Mandatory GPL or LGPL library dependencies are probably trouble. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: junior Mentor request advice from senior Mentor.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 01:10PM, Branko Čibej wrote: On 22.03.2015 09:05, jan i wrote: Hi. Sorry could not resist the subject line, but fact is I need a good advice. I know our rulebook about including 3rd party libraries, but rules are open to interpretation, and since I am involved in the development I consider my opinion for biased. In Corinthia we depend on the following third party libraries (currently not in repo): zlib1 libxml2 iconv SDL SDL_Image. The first 3 ones are not available precompiled for windows 64bit (at least not from a trustworthy source), so we need to make it available. I see 3 options: 1) Ask developers to download and build by them self (sadly enough they also need to setup the vcxproj file) 2) one PPMC (in this case me) precompilles all libs, make them available as a zip on minotaur, which of course is a trusted source, but somewhat ackward to the project. 3) the sources are added to the repo, in a designated directory and integrated in our build system. I would prefer to suggest 3), but I want to be absolutely sure, that we do it the right way. I would suggest: a) put a README, for each downloaded lib, with the original URL and version b) add the licenses to the LICENSE file c) copy the README into NOTICES d) In the first commit, make a commit text like the README. e) Make the missing bits for a 64bit version, and integrate in our build system. Would that be a good solution to the problem, or do you have other ideas or corrections ? My goal here is, to make the right decision up front, and not when we have cut a release. Write a script that downloads the supported versions and include the necessary vcxproj files in your source distribution. I believe msbuild can download stuff, so you may even be able to automate the download from the project file. Not sure what are the licenses of the libs in question, so please refer to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html if in doubt. And Brane's suggestion would work in any case, even with (L)GPL bits. Hosting it outside and letting developers/users to pull them in on their own is pretty much bullet-proof. Cos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Hello, The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0. We now request the IPMC to vote on the release. Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes are from the IPMC members) 2 +1 (IPMC) 5 +1 (PPMC) The dev list voting thread: http://s.apache.org/N5N All release artifacts have been uploaded here: http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/ Please start voting. +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release 0 - don't care either way -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
Re: ASFIncubator now managed via TweetDeck
The above makes a really nice, security-conscious scheme that I would love to champion among various PMCs and suggest that we document it as part of our social media guidelines. The only open question in my mind is who (and by extension what email address) should the master ASFxxx account be associated with. I see two alternatives here: * ASF Infra team collectively owns it * Whoever controls @TheASF owns it Neither IMO. Infra doesn't want it (and we will politely decline if asked to manage your social media creds). And burdening Sally, Jim, Joe, etc with scores of projects credentials isn't going to scale well. If I were to define it, Make the address for the account private@$foo.a.o (CloudStack uses an alias that forwards to private@cs.a.o IIRC) I would say turn on MFA for the account (device held by the chair or his designee) keep the override codes encrypted to multiple PMC members in the projects private svn tree (and open to add more PMC members at their request). That gives the PMC the ability to override if someone disappears or goes off the tracks. Federating access is easy with Tweetdeck or Hootsuite - securing the account becomes a lot easier as well. --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
A few notes that come to mind: - In the VOTE RESULT, it helps if you can name who voted. - Can you include the git commit SHA of what is being voted on? As well as a link? - I see the KEYS file is in the upload directory, but again, a direct link would help. I don’t think any of the above would/should block a release. I only point them out because it makes reviewing a release more difficult. Getting people to review a release can be hard. The easier you make it to review a release, the better your chance of getting the requisite binding +1 votes. -Taylor On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan dsetrak...@apache.org wrote: Hello, The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0. We now request the IPMC to vote on the release. Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes are from the IPMC members) 2 +1 (IPMC) 5 +1 (PPMC) The dev list voting thread: http://s.apache.org/N5N All release artifacts have been uploaded here: http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/ Please start voting. +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release 0 - don't care either way -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why) signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
+1 After some digging, the PPMC VOTE looks good. -Taylor On Mar 31, 2015, at 1:01 AM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote: A few notes that come to mind: - In the VOTE RESULT, it helps if you can name who voted. - Can you include the git commit SHA of what is being voted on? As well as a link? - I see the KEYS file is in the upload directory, but again, a direct link would help. I don’t think any of the above would/should block a release. I only point them out because it makes reviewing a release more difficult. Getting people to review a release can be hard. The easier you make it to review a release, the better your chance of getting the requisite binding +1 votes. -Taylor On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan dsetrak...@apache.org wrote: Hello, The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0. We now request the IPMC to vote on the release. Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes are from the IPMC members) 2 +1 (IPMC) 5 +1 (PPMC) The dev list voting thread: http://s.apache.org/N5N All release artifacts have been uploaded here: http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/ Please start voting. +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release 0 - don't care either way -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why) signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
