+1 (non-binding)
2014-12-19 7:24 GMT+01:00 Jaideep Dhok jaideep.d...@inmobi.com:
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Jaideep
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Hyunsik Choi hyun...@apache.org wrote:
+1 (binding)
On Friday, December 19, 2014, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
+1 (binding)
On 12/19/2014 12:29 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Following the discussion earlier:
http://s.apache.org/kTp
I would like to call a VOTE for accepting
Zeppelin as a new Incubator project.
The proposal is available at:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZeppelinProposal
and
+1 (binding)
On 19 December 2014 at 14:09, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 (binding)
On 12/19/2014 12:29 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Following the discussion earlier:
http://s.apache.org/kTp
I would like to call a VOTE for accepting
Zeppelin as a new Incubator
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks
Naresh
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Fabian Hueske fhue...@apache.org wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
2014-12-19 7:24 GMT+01:00 Jaideep Dhok jaideep.d...@inmobi.com:
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Jaideep
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Hyunsik Choi
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On 12/18/2014 05:42 PM, Richard Downer wrote:
This is to call for a vote for the source release of Apache Brooklyn
0.7.0-M2-incubating.
Call for votes on d...@brooklyn.incubator.apache.org:
+1 (non-binding)
— Hitesh
On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
Restarting vote having fixed resolution detail, dastardly AWOL paragraph
breaks
and removed nod to increased diversity in introduction.
The Samza podling community has voted to graduate from the
I noted in my comments on the recent Incubator board report that I am
concerned, month after month, at the number of podlings that have no
mentor sign-off at all, as well as the ones where a minority of the
mentors sign-off.
I certainly don't expect that every mentor has their full attention
Hi Rich,
As I noted previously, at least from my point of view we wouldn't be
accepting a podling's report that wasn't signed off on. I had deliberately
added a section to the report header separating podlings that didn't report
(and hence their reports not being included) and podlings that did
Hi Rich!
Thanks for raising this point and giving us a bit more of a forcing
function to tackle an old problem: accountability for mentors.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
I certainly don't expect that every mentor has their full attention on a
podling
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
I noted in my comments on the recent Incubator board report that I am
concerned, month after month, at the number of podlings that have no mentor
sign-off at all, as well as the ones where a minority of the mentors
sign-off.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
(Adapting my response from the private list...)
+1 to reject reports where not a single Mentor has signed off and to require
the podling to report next month.
I am confused. We're already doing that. Are you just
Strawman:
What if a mentor is *required* to be an active participant of the project. That
is contributing code, voting on releases and generally engaging with the
community, they would be a better mentor since they have a vested interest in
the project itself. Sure, we might reduce the number
And how could the below proposal return without me passing along
my comment regarding it - if we’re going to emulate the board and
TLPs, etc., why emulate it when we could cut through the middle man
and simply rely on the board to do so? I guess to protect the board
from an influx of “incubating”
+1 for Chris's proposal.
Without diminishing the creativity applied to solving problems with
the incubator, perhaps the better solution is to trade those problems
for tractable ones. -C
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
And how could
Back when I was trying to be the chair of this operation, we (ChrisM
I others) had a lovely old food fight about Chris M's proposal. It
seems to me that the fundamental situation as I saw it remains: this
is a proposal to the board to dissolve the IPMC and replace it with
something else. And
On 12/18/2014 05:58 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
All,
I was looking through the incubator site and I don't see anything definite.
Whenever a podling goes for a vote, and they include a git tag in their
vote message, it's typically asked to change to a commit id. It seems to
me this is done for
Assuming that the project VP is someone personally invested in the project I
have no real problem with the core of this proposal. If they are not personally
invested, if they are instead a semi-random person from the IPMC then I do not
see how this will address the real problem (which is *not*
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
I do question the need to dissolve the IPMC
Indeed. Chris' proposal is not exclusive with keeping the Incubator
as it is. Folks could currently submit a resolution to the board to
start a TLP and
As a participant, I have two concerns about a player-mentor requirement.
1. Sustainability. In many ways, it is mentors who need to have their
attention on The Apache Way and cultivating a sustainable project. That means,
from my perspective, that mentors need to encourage others to do
I recently found this confusing with the first parquet-format release. I
thought that both commit id and tag were optional, given that the actual
release candidate is a signed tarball (actually, the necessary source code
to build the project [1]).
Commit id is not optional. Tag is.
The
Thank you Benson. And that food fight taught me a lot too and
so did the conversations with you.
Cheers and happy holidays.
Chris
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
Now we are getting somewhere?
This post disappeared too. But yours in the same thread before it didn't. Are
you replying to Chris's post or another here?
Was there anything else at all different?
Is there more than one way you read from the lists (i.e., via a news reader or
something)?
Are we top posting now?
My comments below Ross’
On 19 Dec 2014, at 16:33, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
As a participant, I have two concerns about a player-mentor requirement.
1. Sustainability. In many ways, it is mentors who need to have their
attention on
Sorry, I forgot to change the automatic reply to list when moving this to an
off-list investigation.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 15:07
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [OFF-LIST] RE:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote:
Are we top posting now?
My comments below Ross’
On 19 Dec 2014, at 16:33, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
As a participant, I have two concerns about a player-mentor requirement.
1.
On 19 Dec 2014, at 18:30, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote:
Are we top posting now?
My comments below Ross’
On 19 Dec 2014, at 16:33, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
As a
+1 (binding)
Regards,
Arvind Prabhakar
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
Following the discussion earlier:
http://s.apache.org/kTp
I would like to call a VOTE for accepting
Zeppelin as a new Incubator project.
The proposal is available at:
Tags are at best a convenience, and nothing else. But so are commit id,
since in the long-term, GIT may not prevail and the commit id is in effect
an internal artifact of Git itself, not the concept of version control
systems. Compare how commit numbers from Subversion are imported to Git
28 matches
Mail list logo
