Re: [VOTE] Retire Apache Pirk (incubating)

+1. It appears prudent given the drop in momentum though the initial growth and efforts were highly encouraging. On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > It seems like the discussion had 1mos+ hasn't resulted in anyone with > time/ability/interest to continue the

[DISCUSS] Next steps for the community

Team, We appear to have lost momentum. The last substantive email I see in the mailing lists is in Dec 2016 from a contributor attempting to contribute a PR but no reply. The last significant code commit into the repo was early Nov 2016 and really trailed off in Oct 2016. It will be important

Re: Draft for Review - October Podling Report

We should avoid the debate about how likely the loss is but we should also point out how dubious this guidance appears to be in other communities that graduated. Nah, let's not debate that either. ;-) Pirk is a pretty specialized and awesome concept. Whether the core committer base expands or

Re: Draft for Review - Apache Pirk September Podling Report

Worth considering adding in some numbers to back the comment about mailing list/related growth. Looks good though and would +1 as is. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > Done, thanks for putting this together! > > > Ellison Anne Williams wrote: >> >>

Re: Completing Apache Pirk 0.1.0-incubating Release

Congrats all! On Aug 29, 2016 5:04 PM, "Suneel Marthi" wrote: > I am finalizing the release now !! > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Suneel Marthi > wrote: > > > Should I go ahead and finish the release? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > >

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

table jar) would fall into case (1). Is this correct? On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > The zip of the source is the source release. That is not a binary > convenience artifact. > > On Aug 17, 2016 11:04 AM, "Ellison Anne Williams

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

The zip of the source is the source release. That is not a binary convenience artifact. On Aug 17, 2016 11:04 AM, "Ellison Anne Williams" wrote: > From the discussion, although this seems to be somewhat murky ASF ground, > it seems that we need two sets of L files: >

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Hello, The link Tim provided to the licesning guide NiFi uses is definitely a great place to start as it brings together a bunch of ASF policy and/or guidance and applies it to the context of Apache NiFi, what we release, and our bundling model. Whether this is a strict policy or not is clear -

Re: Mentor Question -- Release and Pom File

One quick thing I noticed is it doesn't look like we're using the apache parent pom. That helps a lot. On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Suneel Marthi wrote: > One other thing we need to figure out for next release. You shouldn't have > to specify the repository info in

Re: For Review -- Draft August Podling Report

+1 on the report On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Billie Rinaldi wrote: > Looks good to me. The important issues section typically contains items > from the graduation preparation list [1], and releases and community > building are the most common issues that podlings are

Re: RTC/CTR Discussion

For sure. Code can always evolve and if a commit happens that needs some refinement all is fine. In essence ctr is always available. For us adopting RTC it means, in my opinion, that you should obtain an independent opinion that it is good to go. As new folks contribute it stokes engagement

Re: Minimum Maven version

#L257-L268 That will address the XML parsing issue I believe and should also address the travis.yml header issue. Thanks Joe On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Suneel Marthi <suneel.mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > how do i access that? > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Joe Witt <

Re: Minimum Maven version

nly > one without a header. > > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Suneel >> >> It is probably a good idea to keep it there because it can really help >> with automating some of the checks as people put in PRs.

Re: Minimum Maven version

>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Suneel Marthi <suneel.mar...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Let's go with Option 1, i can modify .travis.yml to account for Maven >>>> 3.3x >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 5:58 PM,

Re: RTC/CTR Discussion

+1. On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > It seems that we could give RTC a shot, with one reviewer posting a +1 (or > equivalent) comment on a pull request before it is accepted, and switch > back to CTR if RTC became too burdensome. > > It

Re: PR merge process

I am far from being a Git expert but I end up on this page a lot: https://ariejan.net/2009/10/26/how-to-create-and-apply-a-patch-with-git/ Joe On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > My fault completely - I forgot to include the '--author'

Re: Simple pull request

ow NiFi 's lead here. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > In the NiFi community we do RTC and when PRs come in a build process >> > kicks off from the Github PR entry that causes travis-ci to do the &

Re: Simple pull request

In the NiFi community we do RTC and when PRs come in a build process kicks off from the Github PR entry that causes travis-ci to do the bulid on linux and appveyor on windows. We get the results of that. It runs through the compilation/tests/checkstyle/and RAT. Has helped quite a bit with PR