For your convenience, here's the proposal text for CommonsRDF:
= Apache Commons RDF incubation proposal =
TableOfContents()
== Status ==
Draft
== Abstract ==
Commons RDF is a set of interfaces for the RDF 1.1 concepts that can
be used to expose common RDF-1.1 concepts using common Java
I didn't read the documentation carefully enough to quote details, but it
appeared that the efficiency and asynchronous nature of the parameter
server is considered to be a key factor in scalability and performance.
The performance numbers that I read compared singa to H2O and showed a very
Since the only official release is the source release, perhaps that's
the only place where we in fact need a policy?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org
wrote:
I think formally the
ATTENTION IPMC! If anybody is out there wants a low-stress Mentoring gig,
this is it. And if you're an RDF neutral outsider, you'll be helping
this project to achieve its goals, just by showing up.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org
wrote:
Right - I think it
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org
wrote:
I think formally the requirement is just that there is incubating
somewhere in the released downloadables, it doesn't have to be part of
the version number
Originally it was a matter of the user can't avoid notice
[-board]
Roman,
I am also pleased to see your effort, and likewise comments/edits on page
are not available to me, so I post here...
I am wondering why there is anything about the committers at all?
1. All committers on the project are also subscribed to the private@ ML
of a pTLP
2.
Roman,
Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier;
https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST
should be
https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI
Niclas
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
I guess, if there is no single aspect to discuss, we can move forward
with an official vote, right?
On 05/02/15 08:49, Sergio Fernández wrote:
Hello everyone,
I would like to propose Commons RDF, a small library providing a common
API for RDF 1.1. The current draft of the proposal is here:
On 9 February 2015 at 21:59, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote:
I noticed that as well. I'm assuming it's in part because no one has
access to the incubator JIRA.
How come ? of course you need a jira account, but incubator jira does not
seem to have specially closed permissions.
Hi,
I can reply about SAMOA.
We want to create bylaws because the default voting process for code
changes in Apache is too strict for us (3 +1 binding votes).
Being a small community, we felt that we needed a lower bar to move faster.
My understanding is that we need bylaws to specify that, but
On 10 February 2015 at 11:44, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales
g...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
I can reply about SAMOA.
We want to create bylaws because the default voting process for code
changes in Apache is too strict for us (3 +1 binding votes).
Being a small community, we felt that we needed
On 11 February 2015 at 07:31, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote:
The natural path to Apache Commons Sandbox has been studied, but we
think that in this phase of the project, which focuses on the API
design
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi,
I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I
disagree:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote:
The natural path to Apache Commons Sandbox has been studied, but we
think that in this phase of the project, which focuses on the API
design and actively involves the developers of existing toolkits, it
is better to
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Since the only official release is the source release, perhaps that's
the only place where we in fact need a policy?
I would really encourage us to keep this for Maven. Especially for Maven
where you may have no clue
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
Roman,
Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier;
https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST
should be
https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI
Fixed! As a side note: I really need to figure out how to make
sure
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
Also, great job on writing this up. I have a few amendments,
which I will just put into email since I can’t do so on the
wiki:
Man, this is annoying -- let me see what I can do. I really don't
think I can take
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
Since the only official release is the source release, perhaps that's
the only place where we in fact need a policy?
I would really
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Chris Mattmann mattm...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Roman, I can’t seem to comment on the COMDEV wiki page.
Also, great job on writing this up. I have a few amendments,
which I will just put into email since I can’t do so on the
wiki:
Man, this is annoying -- let me
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to
become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes
on a
Hi,
When reviewing the podling (as a shepherd) I at first allso though it odd,
however they have looked into what other projects are doing and are using RTC
not CTR. The discussion (as I understand it) is about accepting non committer
code not all code changes. This is the relevant thread [1]
On 10 February 2015 at 20:31, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
I also think it would be OK for the project to decide it wants to become a
TLP. Whether the project joins Commons or becomes its own TLP won't impact
the number of people qualified to work on it. Some Apache TLPs are
+1 to jan's comments
Ideally you should not be carrying out votes for code changes unless you
can't progress without it. In some Apache projects I've participated in I
don't think we've ever held a formal vote on code changes. It's fairly
common to informally use +1/0/-1 to expression opinions
Just out of curious.
My coworker is working on implementing DNN on Apache Hama (which supports
general-purpose BSP computing and Pregel-like graph framework). If Hama is
leveraging InfiniBand and GPUs in the future, what will be the major
difference bt Hama-based DistBelief clone and Singa
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Edward J. Yoon edward.y...@samsung.com
wrote:
My coworker is working on implementing DNN on Apache Hama (which supports
general-purpose BSP computing and Pregel-like graph framework). If Hama is
leveraging InfiniBand and GPUs in the future, what will be the
Hi Incubator,
I'd like some context about the requirement of adding -incubating in the file
name of podling releases.
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven
It seems we require adding -incubating in the
Agree about the worry about breaking semantic versioning. OSGi-wise
for example this is a bit tricky, where you have to do
0.5.3.incubating instead to ensure incubating is a qualifier rather
than part of the 3.
But if the project is publishing Maven artifacts, then I believe it's
pretty clean if
I think that, one of the big differences is that Singa is written in C++.
Awesome, I'd be the first client. And anything from architectural viewpoint?
--
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
-Original Message-
From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11,
28 matches
Mail list logo
