On 13/12/2014 jan i wrote:
The Travel Assistance Committee (TAC) are pleased to announce that travel
assistance applications for ApacheCon North America 2015 are now open! ...
http://www.apache.org/travel/
The passport/visa information on that page are still the ones for
Budapest and EU
thanks for the tip, I will get it corrected.
rgds
jan i
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 13/12/2014 jan i wrote:
The Travel Assistance Committee (TAC) are pleased to announce that travel
assistance applications for ApacheCon North America 2015 are
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi,
Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in a
related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having this can
be useful.
So let's start - here's my rough initial list of
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote:
...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
statement “source code only” probably applies to the source code
release, meaning that
On 6 January 2015 at 18:31, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:
...How about a compromise:
distribution of releases and source: publicly, in a _consistent_ manner
according to foundation guidelines?...
On 06/01/2015 Vincent Keunen wrote:
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
convenience binaries are not Apache Releases.
Let's not forget OpenOffice and the likes. Having all users compile the
source code *may* reduce the installed base. ;-)
The binaries OpenOffice makes available
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 06/01/2015 Vincent Keunen wrote:
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
convenience binaries are not Apache Releases.
Let's not forget OpenOffice and the likes. Having all users compile the
source code
On 06/01/2015 Tim Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
The binaries OpenOffice makes available for download from its official site
are convenience binaries as per Bertrand's description. We are not going
to ask users to build it themselves!
We're heading
I would add something about the build of the sources. Because having sources
without having a repeatable build or having no clue about how to build it, it
makes the sources quite useless.
I had some troubles recently with a project. Its build depends on a resource
which is not available
These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private list
has no place in Apache projects. Private lists have very limited
appropriate uses and that policy has served Apache very well.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org
wrote:
On 06/01/2015
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private list
has no place in Apache projects. Private lists have very limited
appropriate uses and that policy has served Apache very well.
+1
jan i
On
On 6 Jan 2015, at 14:48, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 06/01/2015 Daniel Gruno wrote:
projects unfortunately have a tendency to use their private lists for
much more than committer votes and security issues, which I find is bad
practice.
If you as a project had a
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 Jan 2015, at 18:09, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com
wrote:
These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private
list
has
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:
On 2015-01-06 18:53, Vincent Keunen wrote:
Good idea.
I would just remove the only from Releases: source code only. Maybe
say Releases: source code at the minimum ? It's not a problem to have
some projects also release
Hi,
Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in a
related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having this can
be useful.
So let's start - here's my rough initial list of items:
Code: open, discoverable, fully public history, documented provenance
Quality:
On 6 Jan 2015 at 19:01:01, Daniel Gruno (humbed...@apache.org) wrote:
On 2015-01-06 18:53, Vincent Keunen wrote:
Good idea.
I would just remove the only from Releases: source code only.
Maybe say Releases: source code at the minimum ? It's not a problem
to have some projects also release
Good idea.
I would just remove the only from Releases: source code only. Maybe
say Releases: source code at the minimum ? It's not a problem to have
some projects also release binaries, is it?
Shouldn't there be also something about a minimum documentation? Not
necessarily doc on source
Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote:
...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
statement “source code only” probably applies to the source code
release, meaning that it should not contain any binaries. Since
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:
...How about a compromise:
distribution of releases and source: publicly, in a _consistent_ manner
according to foundation guidelines?...
Works for me.
-Bertrand
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote:
...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
statement “source code only” probably applies to the source code
release, meaning that
20 matches
Mail list logo
