Re: Ignite Voting Process

On 30.12.2015 16:30, Raul Kripalani wrote: > Hi Anton, > > Why don't we publish artifacts for ignite-geospatial, ignite-hibernate and > ignite-schedule? The lgpl profile is not triggered in these instructions, > and these artifacts cease existing in Maven Central 1.2.0-incubating > onwards. > > I

Re: Ignite Voting Process

On 31.12.2015 09:58, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 30.12.2015 16:30, Raul Kripalani wrote: >> Hi Anton, >> >> Why don't we publish artifacts for ignite-geospatial, ignite-hibernate and >> ignite-schedule? The lgpl profile is not triggered in these instructions, >> and these artifacts cease existing in

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.5.0.final RC3

+1 binding Sergi 2015-12-30 18:53 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda : > +1 (binding) > > > On 12/29/2015 1:54 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > >> Dear Sirs! >> >> We have uploaded release candidate to >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/1.5.0.final-rc3/ >> >> This is very

Re: Ignite Voting Process

Hi Brane, On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > We'd be publishing modules that can't be used without the LGPL > components. I'm not sure how that stands WRT our policies but I can't > see how it would be a service to our users to actively nudge them > towards

Re: "The latest version is 1.1.0-incubating"

We would love to delete a bunch of branches, but Apache GIT will not allow it. Is there a viable way in ASF to clean GIT branches up? On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > I have also looked up at the branches and tags in the workspace and found > that >

Re: about ignite-hibernate module

Hi： Sorry, my understanding of the open source license is not very deep. As far as I know, ehcache is also abide by Apache 2.0 license, ignite also abideby Apache 2.0 license, is because ignite with a commercial version that led to this situation now? If so,

Re: Ignite Voting Process

Thanks Anton, this is great! As Cos mentioned, Voting Process is not a good name this doc. I have renamed it to Release Process. Also, looks like the RAT step is missing. Can it be added? D. On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Igniters, > >

Re: Ignite Voting Process

I tend to agree with Raul. We have been anal-retentive to a fault with regard to LGPL, instead of focusing on usability. Our users are already required to take a conscious step to include LGPL modules into Ignite builds, so there is no implicit “drag-in”, as Raul mentioned. I would vote for