Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > >... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being > fully > > aware of an increased load... > > And

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

+1 -- Herzliche Grüße, Best regards Michael Müller Twitter: @muellermi Blog: blog.mueller-bruehl.de Web Development with Java and JSF: leanpub.com/jsf Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams: leanpub.com/lambdas Am 27. September 2016 22:30:36 MESZ, schrieb Ate Douma : >Hi everyone, >

Re: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

(Please note the mixed public/private lists) As a little bit of context: NetBeans is not only a large project with a complex history, community, and infrastructure, but it's also coming at a time when the ASF is trying to improve our internal operations, infrastructure team and systems, and our

Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of "NetBeansProposal" by GeertjanWielenga

Yup. I stand corrected and have deleted. :-) Gj On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:39 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Its generally not good practice to edit the proposal once the vote has > started. > > John > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:38 PM Apache Wiki

Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of "NetBeansProposal" by GeertjanWielenga

Its generally not good practice to edit the proposal once the vote has started. John On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:38 PM Apache Wiki wrote: > Dear Wiki user, > > You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Incubator Wiki" > for change notification. > > The

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

+1 ... Indicating enthusiasm :-) On Sep 27, 2016 4:30 PM, "Ate Douma" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Now that the discussion thread on the NetBeans Proposal has ended, > please vote on accepting NetBeans into the Apache Incubator. > > The ASF voting rules are described at: >

Re: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

Yup. We're really lucky to have the group of mentors that we've been given. They're our first port of call, as observed in the discussion re the initial committers list. Thanks, Bertrand, Ate, Jim, Emmanuel, Daniel, and Mark -- there's a long road ahead and your insights are going to be

Re: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

On 2016-09-28 00:50, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: Sorry, Bertrand, not Ate, though I feel they're in sync. In this case, you felt right :-) Syncing with the mentors would have been appreciated, but I also see no harm done in Roman's trying to help out. Thanks Roman! Ate Gj On Wednesday,

Re: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

Sorry, Bertrand, not Ate, though I feel they're in sync. Gj On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > From the NetBeans side, we appreciate Roman's callibration and Jim's > transparency and Ate's diplomacy. > > Onwards. > > Gj > > > On

Re: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

>From the NetBeans side, we appreciate Roman's callibration and Jim's transparency and Ate's diplomacy. Onwards. Gj On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Bertrand Delacretaz < bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > (removing board@ which has nothing to do with this) > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:39

Re: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

(removing board@ which has nothing to do with this) On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > ...Putting aside the amount of personal time I've spent on the phone, > online, etc. trying to help this community calibrate their expectations > about transition

Re: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I would have assumed that if Netbeans stakeholders had any issues > or question, or requests for clarification, they would have > pinged either their champion or one of their proposed mentors. > > As it is, it is only on

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

On 2016-09-28 00:08, John D. Ament wrote: is there anyone on streams to object? I don't think so, no :-) Is this going to be more of a reboot or do we expect some amount of going forward? Right now, I expect or at least hope some amount of going forward. Or depending on the outcome of

Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

I would have assumed that if Netbeans stakeholders had any issues or question, or requests for clarification, they would have pinged either their champion or one of their proposed mentors. As it is, it is only on this thread, and not on any Incubator/vote thread that I can see that this even came

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

is there anyone on streams to object? Is this going to be more of a reboot or do we expect some amount of going forward? We had a similar case recently with another podling. There was a retirement vote, some community voices, when it came to actually reviving they got part way through and ended

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

On 2016-09-25 12:25, Ate Douma wrote: I'm happy to add and have Suneel join me as mentor for Apache Streams. I can't find anything about this: Is there any formal process or voting needed before I make this so? Without further feedback I'm going to assume lazy consensus and will add Suneel as

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >... Greg's proposal, as far as I can see, is predicated on mentors being fully > aware of an increased load... And as such might be an interesting filter to make sure mentors are actually going to engage. -Bertrand

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Ate Douma wrote: >... Now that the discussion thread on the NetBeans Proposal has ended, > please vote on accepting NetBeans into the Apache Incubator... +1 -Bertrand - To

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) LieGrue, Strub > Am 27.09.2016 um 22:30 schrieb Ate Douma : > > Hi everyone, > > Now that the discussion thread on the NetBeans Proposal has ended, > please vote on accepting NetBeans into the Apache Incubator. > > The ASF voting rules are described at: >

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

Excited yet bit nervous to see how this goes =) +1 (binding) On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Now that the discussion thread on the NetBeans Proposal has ended, > please vote on accepting NetBeans into the Apache Incubator. > > The ASF voting

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) -Taylor > On Sep 27, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > > This vote will run for at least 72 hours. Please VOTE as follows > [] +1 Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator > [] +0 Abstain. > [] -1 Do not accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator because ... >

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

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Donald Szeto wrote: > Hi Justin, > > Sounds good. Since a vote usually take 72 hours, is it okay in practice to > "pipeline them"? What I mean is to let the current IPMC vote sits here, > while the project PMC creates a new RC and start voting

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

This vote will run for at least 72 hours. Please VOTE as follows [] +1 Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator [] +0 Abstain. [] -1 Do not accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator because ... +1 (binding) Ate - To

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

Hi Justin, Sounds good. Since a vote usually take 72 hours, is it okay in practice to "pipeline them"? What I mean is to let the current IPMC vote sits here, while the project PMC creates a new RC and start voting on it? Or must they be mutually exclusive, i.e. only one could exist at any time? I

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

Hi, > Meanwhile, if we want to fix it by unbundling the photos (which are > jCarousel examples that do not affect its functionality), do we need to go > through another round of PredictionIO voting before coming back to IPMC? Yes that is needed, but given the changes are minimal it should be

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > >> For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans >> mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) and welcome aboard! On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:30 PM Ate Douma wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Now that the discussion thread on the NetBeans Proposal has ended, > please vote on accepting NetBeans into the Apache Incubator. > > The ASF voting rules are described at: >

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

> This vote will run for at least 72 hours. Please VOTE as follows > [ X ] +1 Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator > [] +0 Abstain. > [] -1 Do not accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator because … i.e. +1 (Binding). Greg Trasuk > On Sep 27, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Ate Douma

[VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

Hi everyone, Now that the discussion thread on the NetBeans Proposal has ended, please vote on accepting NetBeans into the Apache Incubator. The ASF voting rules are described at: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html A vote for accepting a new Apache Incubator podling is a majority

Re: [VOTE] Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3

Oh, I forgot to mention - to check the RAT report, you can use the script in bin/check-rat-report.py and the list of files to exclude from bin/rat_exclude_files.txt On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jim Apple wrote: > The Impala PPMC has voted to release 2.7.0 release

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

Hi Ate! Note that the proposed handling is only a 'best practice' tip. It is _not_ mandated. No need to veto the release just because they do it different. If a project does -RCx then it's legally also fine for the ASF. It is just much more work and possibly confusing to users (which browse

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Ate Douma wrote: If can send out the vote mail in about an hour or so if everyone is OK. > Bottom line -- we've discussed a lot already and we'll be discussing a lot more during incubation. The NetBeans community is large and diverse. Some might have less of an

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans > mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit > them > once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release. In that regard,

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

Hi Mark, On 2016-09-27 09:44, Mark Struberg wrote: Hi Ate! It's quite natural that many other projects just point to DeltaSpike. DS was in 2011 amongst the very first projects using GIT at the ASF. One of the results of this effort (together with the CouchDB community) was following document

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On 2016-09-27 18:12, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: ...I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it will be useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are,

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various >

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

Hi Justin, Thank you so much for your detailed review! I am clarifying the redistribution rights with the photographer. Meanwhile, if we want to fix it by unbundling the photos (which are jCarousel examples that do not affect its functionality), do we need to go through another round of

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

I'm very OK with starting the vote. I'd recommend leaving this to the Apache community as much as possible, everyone from NetBeans is extremely positive about all this so let's be reticent in this specific process, and enable the Apache community to work through all this. That would be my advise

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > >> Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points >> very, very explicitly: >>1. I would expect the folks

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga > wrote: >> ...The vote on this proposal is explicitly not tied to contact being >> made to everyone for inclusion

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > ...I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it will be > useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are, > etc etc... Ok we can add that info in concise

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

On 9/27/16, 8:38 AM, "gch...@gmail.com on behalf of Greg Chase" wrote: >In Apache Geode, we are trying to be liberal about bringing in new >committers. Anyone who shows an interest, and a series of well formatted >pull requests that follow are

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

On Sep 27, 2016 10:44 AM, "Gregory Chase" wrote: > > Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying > homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the > technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to > those who

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

It's a radical proposal - but I think it would only work well where the champion/mentors are also from same community - e.g. the kind of "Already lots of Apache folks" projects that we previously suggested for the straight-to-PLP mode. There's also the danger of the project to seem hostile to

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it will be useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are, etc etc. From the NetBeans side of things, we're a large community and lots of us are following all this and maybe someone can point us Apache

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

+0.5 I like this idea a lot (but there are governance problems to be solved). I have long been frustrated at folks who jump on the bandwagon and become initial committers then play no further part in the project. Do inactive committers harm the project? No, of course they don’t. But it isn’t

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

In Apache Geode, we are trying to be liberal about bringing in new committers. Anyone who shows an interest, and a series of well formatted pull requests that follow are code guidelines are pretty quickly nominated to become committers. This would make it very easy for emeritus contributors to

[VOTE] Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3

The Impala PPMC has voted to release 2.7.0 release candidate 3: Proposal: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-impala-dev/201609.mbox/%3CCAC-pSX36EbVohLNXdg7pV7i3gkv5_JajZ8ekbZM9OguOi9fH0Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E Mirror:

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

It is an interesting idea. I thought that the initial committers list provided the set of people who could define the merit to approve other new committers. The mentors may not be familiar enough with the technology and people to make the decision with the "Flavor" the community wants. The only

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

+1 Ate On 2016-09-27 14:23, Mark Struberg wrote: +1 LieGrue, strub On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 14:11, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament wrote: Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

Having been through this with Apache Geode, I like the idea of paying homage to emeritus committers in the proposal and history of the technology. If you start with a rule of providing committer privileges to those who have directly committed to the project in the last two or three years, and a

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

Le 27/09/16 à 13:25, Greg Stein a écrit : > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various > reasons. Because they are

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

+1 LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 14:11, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > >> Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a >> vote?..

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a > vote?.. I'm +1 for starting the vote. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe,

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a vote? John On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:06 AM Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

Its not a bad idea at all, except you're now relying on already stretched too thin mentors to help bootstrap the podling. And since we've agreed that champion can roll off once the podling has been accepted (since they don't have to be a mentor) you're limiting that a bit further. John On Tue,

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

Considering the effort that went into this and the fact that we had just reached a point where we could move on past this list, I hope you start using this new rule for the next project submitted. Pe marți, 27 septembrie 2016, Greg Stein a scris: > The NetBeans proposal (among

Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want the

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35 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. > Agreed, with both my IPMC and InfraAdmin "hats" on my head. I see these issues having time

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

OpenJDK 1.8.0 from Ubuntu 16.04. Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation It seems it was a threading issue as I was using the optimistic -T1.0C - which of course is not required to work. My fault! The build works now (but of course takes a bit longer :). [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS My vote

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

That's weird. Which Java version do you exactly use? I did run the full build with java7 and it passed perfectly fine. LieGrue, strub On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 12:24, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >-0 (non-binding) -- changes my previous -1 vote after dist/ was

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

-0 (non-binding) -- changes my previous -1 vote after dist/ was populated. I'm afraid it's not positive vote from me as the unit tests were failing the build, otherwise I would say +1. But feel free to ignore this vote :) -1 .md5 .sha1 missing from dist +1 valid .asc signature -1 KEYS file

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > ...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

[VOTE] Apache Unomi 1.1.0-incubating release

Hi, The Unomi community has voted for the release of Apache Unomi 1.1.0 (incubating). The vote thread can be found at : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-unomi-dev/201609.mbox/%3CCAKm8eOQmMA9TpEvvh5OGjXuQ4a3kibf%2BDxCUvYFuDPKzwBLeVw%40mail.gmail.com%3E and the result is at:

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > ...All the above info can be added to the proposal, if this is desirable,.. I don't think that's needed, your explanations here are now recorded in the archives of this public list, that's good enough

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

+1 I assume we will have a 'contribute' section on the official site which explains this and also educate people to please mention their previous contributions on their first contact on the Apache NetBeans mailing lists. That way we can easily pick up people with merit that predates the ASF

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Le 26/09/16 à 22:49, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit : > 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points > very, very explicitly: >1. I would expect the folks bringing NetBeans to ASF Incubator to have > had > spent reasonable amount of time trying to

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

PS: back then I also summed up information about the difference between SVN and GIT regarding handling from a user pov http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/SVNvsGIT Most of it is nowadays common knowledge I hope, but some might still find it useful. LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 27 September

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

Hi Ate! It's quite natural that many other projects just point to DeltaSpike. DS was in 2011 amongst the very first projects using GIT at the ASF. One of the results of this effort (together with the CouchDB community) was following document http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Git_At_Apache_Guide

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

Hi, Sorry -1 binding as the release is likely to contain photographs we don’t have permission to distribute. Happy to change my vote to +1 if it’s shown we do have permission to do so. Most of the other issues are minor (for a first release) and could be fixed next release if the above is not