Re: Legal / Trademark

Yes, I believe tests are a good thing but worth a separate thread. I'm interested in a point Justin mentioned: The ALv2 was created with software in mind. When we create "content" though, will that work equally well? Textual content as well as graphics, sounds etc. I'm not knowledgable enough in

Re: Github notifications

Alright, we've got two people for a separate notifications@ list. I don't have a strong preference. If I don't hear any objections in the next three days I'll create an INFRA ticket to get it set up. On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:49 PM Furkan KAMACI wrote: > +1 for notifications@ > > On Sun, Mar 3,

Re: Project Bylaws

Okay, any other opinions? I don't necessarily need "Bylaws" but a good "Contributors Guide" is one of my pet peeves. So as soon as we have the website up and running I'd like to get some content up there. I'm usually in favor of review-then-commit but in our case I'm not sure if that's always

[VOTE] Website technology

Hi everyone, I propose that we use the same website technology as PLC4X is using[1] for our own. Christofer has volunteered to help us getting that set up. As it's part of the core infrastructure I think a VOTE is good instead of discussing it in a Jira only. If we find it insufficient for some

Re: [VOTE] Website technology

+1 from me too On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 2:44 PM Lars Francke wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I propose that we use the same website technology as PLC4X is using[1] for > our own. Christofer has volunteered to help us getting that set up. As it's > part of the core infrastructure I think a VOTE is

Re: Legal / Trademark

Hi Lars, > On Mar 11, 2019, at 6:29 AM, Lars Francke wrote: > > Yes, I believe tests are a good thing but worth a separate thread. Absolutely. > > I'm interested in a point Justin mentioned: The ALv2 was created with > software in mind. When we create "content" though, will that work equally

Re: Project Bylaws

> On Mar 11, 2019, at 6:35 AM, Lars Francke wrote: > > Okay, any other opinions? > > I don't necessarily need "Bylaws" but a good "Contributors Guide" is one of > my pet peeves. So as soon as we have the website up and running I'd like to > get some content up there. Yes, a contributors'

Re: Jira Workflow

I concur. Not fussy whether we implement triage needed as tag or an extra state, it's the thought that counts :) It might be more consistent to have it as a state and potentially make some statistics easier, but that is pure conjecture on my part. Best, Sönke On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:27 PM

Donation of existing content

Another thing I wanted to bring up is donation of existing content. We have (partial) trainings on HBase, Hadoop ecosystem basics, Kafka and a few other minor things ready. But they are PowerPoint. The colleagues from inovex have their own existing material, also in PowerPoint. I _hope_ that

Re: Project Bylaws

Agree on the contributors guide, that should be a high priority for us. I imagine (probably more hope) that we have a higher than usual drive-by commit rate and probably overall contributor count due to the highly "fragmented" (in a positive way) nature of our content. We discussed this in another

Re: [VOTE] Website technology

+1 Chris Outlook für Android herunterladen From: Sönke Liebau Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 3:29:36 PM To: dev@training.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Website technology +1 from me too On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 2:44 PM Lars Francke wrote:

Re: Jira Workflow

Thanks for the clarification. In which way are you blocked? I don't quite get that yet. Open question for me are: Accepted vs. Triaged? I'm in favor of Accepted, it's the easier word (for non natives at least) Do we want a state "In progress"? (Asking because the Mesos flow has that which was

Re: [VOTE] Website technology

+1 On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:26 AM Christofer Dutz wrote: > +1 Chris > > Outlook für Android herunterladen > > > From: Sönke Liebau > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 3:29:36 PM > To: dev@training.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Website

Re: Jira Workflow

Clarification: I am in favor of accepted / not accepted as a state. Beam is just currently using a tag because we are blocked on the issue. In the shared Jira install, it is also bad that "triaged" "triage" "Triaged" are all separate tags. Kenn On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:05 AM Sönke Liebau

Re: Donation of existing content

Hi Lars, > On Mar 11, 2019, at 9:22 AM, Lars Francke wrote: > > Another thing I wanted to bring up is donation of existing content. > > We have (partial) trainings on HBase, Hadoop ecosystem basics, Kafka and a > few other minor things ready. But they are PowerPoint. > > The colleagues from

Re: Donation of existing content

Hey Lars and Craig, I comment inside Craig's response with some of my thoughts regarding content. Am Mo., 11. März 2019 um 20:23 Uhr schrieb Craig Russell < apache@gmail.com>: > Hi Lars, > > > On Mar 11, 2019, at 9:22 AM, Lars Francke > wrote: > > > > Another thing I wanted to bring up is

Re: [VOTE] Website technology

HI, +1 from me Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Website technology

Hi, +1 from my side! Kind Regards, Furkan KAMACI 11 Mar 2019 Pzt, saat 23:29 tarihinde Justin Mclean < jus...@classsoftware.com> şunu yazdı: > HI, > > +1 from me > > Thanks, > Justin >

Re: [VOTE] Website technology

+1 from me too. Thanks Sharan On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, 21:35 Furkan KAMACI, wrote: > Hi, > > +1 from my side! > > Kind Regards, > Furkan KAMACI > > 11 Mar 2019 Pzt, saat 23:29 tarihinde Justin Mclean < > jus...@classsoftware.com> şunu yazdı: > > > HI, > > > > +1 from me > > > > Thanks, > > Justin

Re: Jira Workflow

Understood! Well, in that case the proposed Beam workflow[1] is almost exactly what I'd like with the only exception of the name "In Progress" switched to "Accepted" The only other minor thing is "Review needed" which already led to confusion in this thread and could be called "Triage needed"