Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.10.0 (incubating) RC4

Hi, Just doing review and is the doc directory meant to be included in the source release? I’m seeing a number of pieces of 3rd party licensed code bundled in there that’s not mentioned in LICENSE. Thanks, Justin - To

[VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.10.0 (incubating) RC4

Hi all, The PredictionIO community has voted that 0.10.0-incubating-rc4 to be good for a source-only release. This thread is to facilitate a voting for the IPMC before a final official source-only release. Vote result on dev@:

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Thankl of the below has been done. Some more are being added. However at this point the more we add the more insulting to those we omit. We've done our best. The list is strong. None will commit nothing, all have a history of years being active in one way or another in the NetBeans community. Gj

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Le 26/09/16 à 07:32, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > >> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish. > > Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would mean > we'd have few others on the list than

Git release candidate tagging policy? [was: Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating]

Hi Mark, On 2016-09-26 17:22, Mark Struberg wrote: Stian, this is established practice in the ASF since the very early days of playing with GIT. It is used e.g. in the following TLPs: TomEE DeltaSpike Johnzon CouchDB Maven and many, many more! It also got discussed on members, infra and even

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Yup, done -- what will you be working on in Apache NetBeans? Based on the books and documentation you've written, I imagine something along those lines, while you're also a Java EE expert, so I could see you contributing in different ways there too, as well as being a JCP expert group member. A

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Hi GJ, due to technical problems I missed one day of the discussion. I'm going to catch up. If possible, please add to to the initial commiters. Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards, Michael Müller Brühl, Germany blog.mueller-bruehl.de it-rezension.de

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:35 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a > graduation goal, not a start incubation goal. +1 -Bertrand - To unsubscribe,

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a graduation goal, not a start incubation goal. John On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:28 PM Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > > > won't

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months with Oracle > infrastructure? If it does, is it urgent enough to block incubation? For me > it does not look that way. Indeed, this is not an urgent issue from the point of view of

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

PS: GitHub may be an option too, though right now we're working with two or three different organizations, to see which would be the best home for plugins.netbeans.org. On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Yup. For sure. Together with

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On 26.09.2016 17:04, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: [...] b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF. won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

added asc (thanks to have caught that!) Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Wordpress Blog | Github | LinkedIn

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

+ md5 and sha1 LieGrue, strub PS: thanks for the review again! > On Monday, 26 September 2016, 18:43, John D. Ament > wrote: > > Can you include the .asc file? > > John > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau > > wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Was about to suggest the same. Add them all and remove the old after some time. Just to get it propagated to the archives. Btw: I've also added a LICENSE and NOTICE to our root in GIT. Please note that both files *are* available in the source release. So again: txs for bringing it up, as it

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Can you include the .asc file? John On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > added batchee source zip there > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/batchee/0.4-incubating/ > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

added batchee source zip there https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/batchee/0.4-incubating/ Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Wordpress Blog | Github

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Yup. For sure. Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering to host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement -- which I think we should try to model on those of Sonatype in relation to Apache Maven. However, there are many many months of incubation ahead -- I believe that

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future home > of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future > without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

creating dist/dev, please be patient a moment Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Wordpress Blog | Github | LinkedIn

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

2016-09-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Stian Soiland-Reyes : > On 26 September 2016 at 16:45, Mark Struberg > wrote: > > Again the question is not about our own repo. The problem are the dozen > downstream repos. You cannot delete it from there once it got pulled

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

I think it's sufficient if you push to dist for the 0.4 release under vote here. If you want to add the older versions to archive.apache.org then you can add them to dist and then remove them again after 24h. On 26 September 2016 at 16:52, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

On 26 September 2016 at 16:45, Mark Struberg wrote: > Again the question is not about our own repo. The problem are the dozen > downstream repos. You cannot delete it from there once it got pulled > downstream. Or is there now a way to prevent downstream replication?

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Think you lost me a bit :s so here where we started the fork from: http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-jbatch-impl-Apache-td36529.html About dist: should i push it there now or is that a todo for next release? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

I didn't want to start a git tag best practices war :) I think we agree that as long as a commit ID is in the email, and/or the hash of the source distribution, then we know what we're voting on and their location is not so important. If you want to skip those, then my opinion is that the

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

> This is incorrect. Infra specifically maintains protected and unprotected > branches. Unprotected branches can be deleted and get sync'd on next push. Again the question is not about our own repo. The problem are the dozen downstream repos. You cannot delete it from there once it got

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

This is a valid point for the older releases. We obviously missed that in our steps. And we also need to add a download page. But that doesn't invalidate this very release. Note that we must not push the release to dist until the vote succeeded. The releases are btw also on

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:23 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > Stian, this is established practice in the ASF since the very early days > of playing with GIT. > It is used e.g. in the following TLPs: > TomEE > DeltaSpike > Johnzon > CouchDB > Maven > and many, many more! > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Stian, this is established practice in the ASF since the very early days of playing with GIT. It is used e.g. in the following TLPs: TomEE DeltaSpike Johnzon CouchDB Maven and many, many more! It also got discussed on members, infra and even board lists. The nice thing about GIT is that it

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future home of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no point in pointing out to the NetBeans community the importance of its plugins. :-) I am comfortable

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

On 9/26/16, 1:53 AM, "Mark Struberg" wrote: > >No, we didn't get an official grant, but the RI is ALv2 and we actively >asked the IBM devs/managers and they are perfectly fine with it. AIUI, IBM could give you or one of their employees who participate in your

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Hi, On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:40 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> ...my suggestion is for infra (David or Greg) to give us their ok to >> proceed with the vote... > ...The Office of the President

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

I am a bit concerned about BatchEE's release procedure. Your vote refers to a KEYS file from a different project (tomee) This would be the fourth BatchEE incubator release - so I'm expecting to find a batchee 0.1-incubating, 0.2-incubating and 0.3-incubating somewhere. Where are the source

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley wrote: >> ...My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that >> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs.. > > Are these

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

On 26 September 2016 at 14:34, Mark Struberg wrote: > We *never* push commits for in-progress votes to hte ASF repos when we use > GIT! > The reason is that we cannot get rid of those afterwards! Of course we can > delete the branch/tag/commit from the ASF repo, but

[RESULT] [IP CLEARANCE] JWPlayer SQE (Streaming Query Engine)

With 72 hours having elapsed with no objections, this vote passes. -Taylor > On Sep 21, 2016, at 2:41 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > > Apache Storm has received a code donation for JWPlayer SQE (Streaming Query > Engine): > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi Stian! We *never* push commits for in-progress votes to hte ASF repos when we use GIT! The reason is that we cannot get rid of those afterwards! Of course we can delete the branch/tag/commit from the ASF repo, but we cannot delete them from all the hundreds downstream repos which almost

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

2016-09-26 15:20 GMT+02:00 Stian Soiland-Reyes : > On 26 September 2016 at 07:28, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > batchee community voted the 0.4-incubating good to release, here is the > > time for general@ to vote on it as well > > -1

Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

+1 (binding) Checked: - Build OK - LICENSE, DISCLAIMER, NOTICE look good - Signatures OK - ASF headers present Regards JB On 09/19/2016 03:50 PM, Nicolas Kourtellis wrote: Hi all, Our new release has been voted from the Apache SAMOA team and we are opening the vote to the incubator email

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

On 26 September 2016 at 07:28, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Hi guys, > > batchee community voted the 0.4-incubating good to release, here is the > time for general@ to vote on it as well -1 (non-binding) Your vote email didn't include any hashes or commit IDs - please

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

+1 (binding) Checked: - build - NOTICE and DISCLAIMERS - ASF headers - LICENSE should be cleaned up but nothing blocker IMHO Regards JB On 09/26/2016 08:28 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi guys, batchee community voted the 0.4-incubating good to release, here is the time for general@ to vote

Re: Request to join Apache Streams (Incubating) as Mentor

OK. Just try to properly report all this in your next cycle (including links to each important discussion/vote mail) to have it properly tracked. All the best for the podling. On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > On 2016-09-26 09:42, Sergio Fernández wrote: > >>

Re: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

Hi, > I think we forget to close the vote and announce the results. Apologies for > that. As far as I could tell I think you only had 2 +1 binding votes before I voted so I’m not sure the vote was closed. Please take more care in future and please send a RESULT email on this vote. Thanks,

Re: Request to join Apache Streams (Incubating) as Mentor

On 2016-09-26 09:42, Sergio Fernández wrote: How this vote relates with the other thread about retiring Apache Streams to the attic? https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/077e46f67271c2e2e2d406b8b1f8cf9ae633a71bccffefdfd206d0b4@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E I'm a bit confused... maybe I

Re: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

Hi Justin, I think we forget to close the vote and announce the results. Apologies for that. Thanks for checking the release. The headers are automatically generated by a mvn plugin, we will try to fix them by changing its configuration. Thanks, -- Gianmarco On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:04 AM,

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi, Changing my vote to +1 binding. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi, > yes there https://github.com/WASdev/standards.jsr352.jbatch . I think we > are good - at least we were when imported the code. Yuck a malformed NOTICE that looks to include things that are most likley not bundled and lists ALv2 things. You may want to help them out with that. But there’s

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

2016-09-26 11:31 GMT+02:00 Justin Mclean : > Hi, > > > Comes from OpenEJB for cli - thought it was ok to rely on transitive > > dependencies there - and for the maven plugin it is JUNG (BSD) so think > it > > is ok, did I miss one? > > I think so but it not clear to me

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

2016-09-26 11:27 GMT+02:00 Justin Mclean : > Hi, > > > No, we didn't get an official grant, but the RI is ALv2 and we actively > asked the IBM devs/managers and they are perfectly fine with it. They even > give feedback on JIRA and contributed patches later on. > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi, > Comes from OpenEJB for cli - thought it was ok to rely on transitive > dependencies there - and for the maven plugin it is JUNG (BSD) so think it > is ok, did I miss one? I think so but it not clear to me when those LICENSES end up. MPL and CDDL (known at category B) are not OK in source

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi, > No, we didn't get an official grant, but the RI is ALv2 and we actively asked > the IBM devs/managers and they are perfectly fine with it. They even give > feedback on JIRA and contributed patches later on. > > We are actively working together so to say. > But by not having a grant we

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

2016-09-26 10:21 GMT+02:00 Justin Mclean : > Hi, > > +0 until IBM copyright question sorted. Happy to change to +1 if there’s a > good reason for it. > > I’d guess that the code come from them in a software grant and the > copyright has just been forgotten to be removed

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi Justin! First, thanks for the review! The question got asked as well while we started incubation. I'll try to quickly sum up the outcome: No, we didn't get an official grant, but the RI is ALv2 and we actively asked the IBM devs/managers and they are perfectly fine with it. They even give

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi, +0 until IBM copyright question sorted. Happy to change to +1 if there’s a good reason for it. I’d guess that the code come from them in a software grant and the copyright has just been forgotten to be removed and IBM added to the NOTICE file? I checked: - inculcating in name - signature

RE: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

Justin, About Apache Samoa - Any known plugin to Hbase , Spark ? Regards, Dor Ben Dov -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: יום ב 26 ספטמבר 2016 10:40 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

Re: Request to join Apache Streams (Incubating) as Mentor

How this vote relates with the other thread about retiring Apache Streams to the attic? https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/077e46f67271c2e2e2d406b8b1f8cf9ae633a71bccffefdfd206d0b4@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E I'm a bit confused... maybe I missed some mails. On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at

Re: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary in source - Looks like most if not all files have incorrect ASF headers. The ASF header should not include a copyright line [2]. Not that it

[VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi guys, batchee community voted the 0.4-incubating good to release, here is the time for general@ to vote on it as well dev@ result: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/batchee-dev/201609.mbox/browser Here is the release note: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.