Kevan Miller wrote:
There was a discussion earlier this year about Tuscany, BouncyCastle,
and a patented IDEA algorithm implemented by BouncyCastle --
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200702.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
FWIW, the IDEA patent expires on 25-05-2010. I
Hello incubator committers!
You should have received an email from me if you are a committer,
sent on 8/17, encouraging you to attend ApacheCon US 2007. You might
or might not know that early registration discounts are extended still
until September 22nd, so you have a week and a half still to
t.peng.dev wrote:
Ok, according to prior meeting of our team, we prefer Apache license.
In that case...
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007 09:50, t.peng.dev wrote:
BSDCS depends on API provided by FFMpeg, it use GPL.
This is probably a big issue, and you will most likely
The board took up this subject briefly at our Aug 29th meeting. Below is
the board's feedback;
Marshall Schor wrote:
Apache signing, to my knowledge, doesn't require use of a certificate
authority.
Apache projects post trusted signatories in a KEYS or equivalent file within
the
[Do Not Reply]
The Incubator PMC is in the process of soliciting a survey of active
mentors on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, so that we can determine if
the volunteer mentors are engaged and present. We are sending this as
a reminder to all mentors to follow that discussion.
It goes without
Ted Husted wrote:
IMHO, unless there are trademark or licensing issues involved, there
should be no Apache rules about Java package naming schemes. Package
names are an arbitrary implementation detail, and the one and only
concern should be what makes the most sense to the individual
Note log4net did not report in June. Status? A report this month
would be appreciated.
Bill
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 16:01, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Note log4net did not report in June. Status? A report this month
would be appreciated.
I removed log4net from reporting schedule, since we voted to graduate it in
February. So, I don't think they were
Matthieu Riou wrote:
This is a vote to recommend Apache ODE for graduation as a top level
project to the Apache Board.
Just one quick comment; it's never necessary to include [EMAIL PROTECTED] if
you have cc'ed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(And yes - graduation votes etc do belong on general@ :)
Craig L Russell wrote:
I agree that the Incubator should groom the PPMC toward self-governance.
But that doesn't mean that the Incubator PMC can avoid its
responsibilities.
+1
Thus I'm in favor of only ONE vote.
That's why I proposed that a vote occur simultaneously on both private
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Saturday 30 June 2007 17:56, Craig L Russell wrote:
The thread has died down with no consensus, so I'm going to try again.
Regarding how a Podling can get a new to Apache committer. First,
the rules:
1. Only the Incubator PMC can vote in a new committer, with three +1
Gilles Scokart wrote:
It solve your problem of IPMC not being able to participate/follow
PPMC private discusion An other benefits is that the PPMC will learn
from their own private discussion, but also from the discussion of
other PPMC.
There is no issue. Members have access to every
I'm including general in this thread to give the incubator community
some small insight into stdcxx's efforts and next steps to graduate.
As far as I can see there are no remaining obstacles.
http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/
is of a caliber higher than expected in open source efforts, the
[How's that for optimism? please not corrected stdcxx-dev list address]
I'm including general in this thread to give the incubator community
some small insight into stdcxx's efforts and next steps to graduate.
As far as I can see there are no remaining obstacles.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
diversity is increasing (we wish it were broader, but I suspect this
project with the visibility of full ASF status will attract additional
committers who might have been hedging their bets on whether or not
the project would survive
J Aaron Farr wrote:
Something like this?
http://people.apache.org/~farra/graduated.png
Fun :) But it looks like a graduating graphic (yes - let's keep it!)
For graduate-d- I'm thinking something that looks more hached - maybe
with it's head already peering out of the cracked shell? Or
This is due to board@ with PMC oversight/feedback 12 hours from now.
Oversight implies at least three reviewers of each report.
According to http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReportingSchedule and
already recorded in http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/June2007 ...
Ode
OpenEJB
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Registration of Trademarks in itself are not very expensive, so Jayasoft
could
register it and donate it to the ASF, as an additional safe guard. However,
ASF will not be able to 'protect' the mark and hence it might be lost in the
future, but at least someone else
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
However we aren't likely to waste time/money fighting over a patent where
we clearly infringed in the first place, so registering Apache Illustrator
(to borrow your example) is sort of pointless. We would be likely to lose
on ambiguity and similarity, so why fight such a
All very good suggestions.
ant elder wrote:
How about changing it so;
(1) incubator-private is notified that discussion of a new committer is
starting on the poddling's private list so IPMCers can participate in that
discussion;
(2) when the actual vote happens the incubator is
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 6/7/07, John O'Hara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AMQP itself was designed mostly based on IETF concepts which are
unencumbered (like smtp, nntp, nfs).
This is not true going forward as the IETF specifically permits (and,
some may say, encourages) encumbered standards
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
I don't know all the communities around ASF, but what I have seen is
that the acceptance/decline happens after the public vote. Entries
to PMCs seems more like private vote - accept/decline - welcome
in the communities I know of.
Mind you, my
Martin Sebor wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
How could a PPMC participate in a vote on the Incubator PMC's private
list?
It cannot, and I don't believe I implied that this would be the case.
The idea is that the PPMC, with the help of the Mentors, conducts a
discussion and a vote just as
+1 on retirement.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
This is a vote to move the Heraldry project from active incubation to
'retired' status.
Earlier this year the Heraldry project was reorganized in order to
make another attempt at incubating an OpenID project. Unfortunately,
the reconstituted podling
Craig L Russell wrote:
o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email
with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's
developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Bill,
On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator
general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email
with a cover statement
Yoav Shapira wrote:
On 5/29/07, Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always thought (and the documentation at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html) says PPMC votes are
binding. There were plenty of PPMC +1 votes without my vote. If I'm
wrong, it (a) sucks because other PPMC
Yoav Shapira wrote:
That's not true. Practically speaking, mentors may not have time to
review an issue that other PPMC members have had plenty of time to
review and vote upon.
That's true, but we are overseeing their -process- not always the
details. I have a great deal of confidence in
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 07:15, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
LEGALLY PPMC votes mean zilch; this is because the board did not charter
or compose the PPMC, doesn't decompose it, doesn't even oversee it per say.
And a majority of decisions within a (P)PMC has no legal
Craig L Russell wrote:
Please review the changes in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-60 and vote to accept
Just an FYI - I haven't followed the jira flow terribly well, mostly because
it takes an order of magnitude longer in time to parse a Jira incident rather
than approve a
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 04:04, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
how many mentors do we have, who should they be, and what is it they do?
Yes - this is pretty well spelled out, but it comes up again. Can we
expect a certain level of activity/response from them? Should we ask
* I'm qurious about http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/#committers.
Why some people are following CTR and others RTC?
quoting that page
Stdcxx Committers are Developers with commit (or write) access to the stdcxx
codebase. Except where noted, all stdcxx committers follow the
Review-Then-Commit
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
* I'm qurious about http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/#committers.
Why some people are following CTR and others RTC?
quoting that page
Stdcxx Committers are Developers with commit (or write) access to the stdcxx
codebase. Except where noted, all stdcxx
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 5/13/07, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 12, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
or Our project {hatched|graduated} from the Apache Incubator and
all I
got was this lousy T-shirt
either hatched or graduated would be a more
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
I noticed that some reports from some podlings are missing.
What happens `?
They are the first against the wall when the revolution comes?
Seriously, we need reports to oversee each of our communities, so these
projects 1. land squarely on the radar, 2. are
robert burrell donkin wrote:
infra requires that all releases are contained within
/www/www.apache.org/dist/. here's my proposal for fixing the current
situation for standard (non-maven) releases:
1 clarify policy (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-62)
2 explain policy in
robert burrell donkin wrote:
the current policy document unnecessarily specifies actions to be done
after graduation. i would like to see these removed from policy and
replaced by a link to the graduation guide.
agree/
What has to happen beyond and outside of incubator isn't actually our
Xavier Hanin wrote:
On 5/6/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is already a concern for existing projects coming from outside
Apache. It is completely and easily possible to become dependent on
both org.apache.wicket/wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1.jar and
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/May2007
RCF
Tika
TSIK
aren't in the list at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReportingSchedule
so I'm a bit confused. If they don't report - please remove
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Please could a IPMC member help us with the IPMC 3rd vote for this
committer
I presume the Qpid PPMC raised no objections. +1, welcome Rupert.
Bill
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Please could a IPMC member help us with the IPMC 3rd vote for this
committer
I presume the Qpid PPMC raised no objections. +1, welcome Kevin.
Bill
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Please could a IPMC member help us with the IPMC 3rd vote for this
committer
I presume the Qpid PPMC raised no objections. +1, welcome Tomas.
Bill
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 4/13/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
On 4/12/07, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
mentors are elected to the IPMC by the proposal approval vote
Elected by being nominated to the iPMC through an iPMC
Craig L Russell wrote:
If the podling discovers something else that's wrong, or for some other
reason decides not to release, are you suggesting that somehow the IPMC
is going to go and release it anyway?
To clarify - the RM, whomever created the tarball, always has the last
word until they
Leo Simons wrote:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
to actively lead in the discharge of their duties (listed above).
I don't see that list. It's a confusing sentence to me. Mentors work to
make sure no mentoring is needed, i.e. make sure that the podling
becomes a
Craig L Russell wrote:
I'm confused. The Process Description [1] seems to be clear:
The Mentor is automatically made a member of the Incubator PMC, and
reports to both the PMC and the Sponsor about your overall health and
suitability for eventual inclusion within the Apache Community (or
Ted Husted wrote:
On 4/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there is nothing stopping individuals from becoming a contributor.
I guess my point is that mentorship isn't a privilege, and shouldn't be
viewed as a feather in one's cap. We need active mentors, not those who
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Personally, I think the project is suffering from a chicken-egg problem.
Without releases no users, without users no developers, without developers no
releases.
Somehow it also feels to me that either dotNet has no credibility at ASF, or
that ASF has no credibility
Ted Husted wrote:
As to a podling proposal, I would suggest that we expect all Mentors
be ASF Members or IPMC Members. If someone would like to be a Mentor
but is not already a ASF Member, we could always elect that person to
the IPMC first, and then accept the proposal.
Keep in mind ASF
Ted Husted wrote:
On 4/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can give me some counter examples of why non ASF member mentorship
is a positive thing, I'd certainly consider those.
It seems inconsistent to me that we would say to someone, yes, you
have earned sufficient
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 06 April 2007 05:44, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
I had recalled this being discussed before [1] because Cayenne had a
mentor who was not a member.
So we are talking about a couple of variants;
1. An ASF Member.
2. An IPMC member.
3. A PMC member of the
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 06 April 2007 12:03, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Mentors must be on the iPMC, most iPMC members are ASF members (very rare
that it is otherwise,
Yes, I have noticed that ;o)
But I am one such rare case, so I see the distinction, and since an ASF
Member
Martin Ritchie wrote:
Thanks for this discussion. So just to clarify, anyone on the PPMC can
request the account/karma setup just the IPMC needs to be CC'd as well
as the usual PPMC on the root email.
infra only acknowledges requests from the PMC chair (iPMC chair in this
case). For
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Also, the whole idea of the Incubator is to
withhold releases from the general public.
Just to clarify - I don't think 'withhold' is a good description.
Release - but with no specific expectation of persistence at the
ASF is probably a better description. E.g. here's
Craig L Russell wrote:
I'd suggest you have the discussion about the future composition of the
PMC as a group, using the dev list as a vehicle. You might find out that
there are committers who would like to take part in the PMC.
I strongly suggest that you include all committers who have
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
huh? The instructions [1] say The project PMC needs to send an email to
root. It doesn't say the project PMC chair. Since root can easily
verify pmc members from committee-info.txt [2], I don't see why any
member of the PMC cannot submit the request.
Whoops :) The
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 04 April 2007 03:33, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
Currently, there is only one active commiter (me) and no active mentors.
This causes some issues with the project. As a way of promoting the
project and possibly get more people interested in contributing, it's my
Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
(FYI - were I a Java fan - I'd be there for you :) Certainly not biased
towards httpd-mod_ftp v.s. FtpServer - I think it's great that both are
at the ASF. Strictly my own language-bias.)
I have the same language-bias (or is it maybe
It's a problem though, when there is only one committer on the code.
I encourage you to approach both the Tomcat and Jakarta communities to
attract some additional hackers!
We (Incubator PMC) won't permit a release when there are fewer than three
sets of eyeballs on the -code-, because by
Ted Leung wrote:
The new ACL list will include:
David Recordon (recordond)
Johannes Ernst (jernst)
Matt Pelletier (mattpelletier)
Dan Quellhorst (quellhorst)
The set of mentors for Heraldry is now:
Aaron Farr
Ted Leung
Bill Rowe
[+1] +1 accept the new Heraldry ACL and PPMC
[
Ted Leung wrote:
In order for Heraldry to continue
there needs to be enough of the code committers who want to continue,
+1
and 3 or 4 is a little small in my eyes. I really do not want to be
back in this situation again in a few months.
3 actual committers is *fine*. (3 proposed
J Aaron Farr wrote:
And if the ReportingSchedule is accruate, we're missing:
* mod_ftp -- graduated into httpd.
* log4php -- was this folded?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
On 3/21/07, Ted Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would also point out that I am currently the only mentor for
Heraldry, and I'm not willing to continue without some other people
jumping in to help. When I originally agreed to mentor Heraldry, I
did it thinking that
And zero incentive to ever graduate. The point is that we've taken
this position because an incubating project ISN'T permitted to operate
or publicize as an ASF Project.
It's accepted, but the podling is accepted provisionally. Abuse of the
Apache name results in ejection of the podling.
We
Paul McMahan wrote:
consensus if no -1 votes are cast within the next 48 hours.
The convention is 72 hours; three days is a constant factor that
accounts for weekends and other real-life issue.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul McMahan wrote:
consensus if no -1 votes are cast within the next 48 hours.
The convention is 72 hours; three days is a constant factor that
accounts for weekends and other real-life issue.
The 48 hours comes from step 7 in the ip
Henri Yandell wrote:
Interested in what other views are there.
My view:
* Not mirroring tar.gz releases is dumb. Infra aren't worried about
the bandwidth and it's pointless to not put things on mirrors.
I'll concur.
* Pulling releases because something didn't graduate is bad.
I laugh -
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Overall the release looks good to me. I verified the *.asc signatures
and looked more closely at uimaj-2.1.0-incubating-src.tar.gz .
I noticed just one thing that struck me as odd in the user
documentation. The UIMA
Jim Jagielski wrote:
The question is whether or not an entity which is not an
official ASF project (a podling) can release code that is
an official release. IMO, the answer is NO and that is
why the Incubator is, in fact, the releasing entity. So
YES, it is official since the Incubator said
Jim Jagielski wrote:
The question is whether or not an entity which is not an
official ASF project (a podling) can release code that is
an official release. IMO, the answer is NO
SO ... anything the podling wants to consider for release belongs in
incubator.a.o/dev/dist/podling/ (or
Because everyone always seems to add their /metoo right after the vote
results are released, I'll post a quick status now, and close the vote
at the T+4:12:00:00 mark, a little more than 4 1/2 hours from now ;-)
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
(With the addition of Nick Kew's late +1) attached
Houston - I believe we have liftoff!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] podling Vote Thread
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] podling Vote Summary
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4 binding +1 votes (and 1 nonbinding +1) by mod_ftp to exit the
incubator as an httpd sub-project.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curt Arnold wrote:
Acting only as mentor and Incubator PMC member and not on behalf of the
Logging Services PMC, I request that the Incubator PMC terminate the
log4php incubation. The source code should continue to be available
from the Subversion, though possibly in a different location to
Curt Arnold wrote:
The log4net-dev community appears healthy and I believes warrants
graduation from the incubator and has my +1 as mentor and incubator PMC
member.
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
Curt Arnold wrote:
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg12442.html)
suggest to me that it may be good for the Incubator project to oversee a
collaboration to produce a Uniform Project Procedures that podlings,
newly graduated projects and established projects could adopt
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 2/9/07, Bob Buffone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incubator,
Apache XAP has released version 0.3.0, this is the inaugural release of
the project. With the help of Robert, Cliff and the whole Xapian
community we have worked through development, testing, licensing
Craig L Russell wrote:
Well, I think we need to be sure we don't create a catch 22 here. The
incubator depends on the project's future PMC accepting it, and the
future PMC depends on the incubator graduating it.
Yes. I think the vote by the project says 'yes, what you incubated will
fit
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
As noted by James Margaris, yourself, Bertrand, et al, this does
not actually address the issue where someone is committing co-workers'
work, rather than having the co-workers participating on-list.
It does when the project pushes back; but I concur...
We are
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 2/3/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they aren't a committer yet, they post a patch (jira or list) just like
every other wannabe future committer. When the volume and quality are
reasonable
robert burrell donkin wrote:
please reread carefully the actual comment
Gotcha - more of what I agreed with deeper into your post.
In the first case, the reason is that patches should be publicly offered and
not privately back-channeled, iCLA or no. We don't have svnmongers here.
Future
robert burrell donkin wrote:
Please give me a case where back channel commits are permitted under
the proposed commit policy?
the wording does not make clear the intention of the rule
for example, i post: feature X is totally fantastic and i've attached
some code that nearly implements
Ted Husted wrote:
I think the real issue here is off-list discussions.
Third is, yes. The other two thirds...
So long as the commit is above-board, properly documentation in the
Subversion log, and backed by a ICLA when applicable, I don't see what
difference posting it to JIRA first
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi all,
This is a vote on a previously posted proposal to start a rdf database
server project at apache. The entire proposal text is included below.
There is only one change from the one posted to the [proposal] thread --
we will start without a triplesoup-users@ mailing
I believe many projects practice this policy, although it's unwritten,
and perhaps there are others who don't (and probably deserve some scrutiny
to determine if it's helpful or harmful).
I'm proposing the following policy become explicit across the incubator;
Where the project policy permits
James Margaris wrote:
-1 from me. (If I even have a vote...)
Although only ASF members/Incubator PMC votes are 'counted', yes everyone here
has a voice - we do appreciate everyone's input. So should every podling.
If I want to check in some third party code with a proper license, I don't
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I am too far underwater to keep track of the incubator mail,
so there is no point in continuing to be on the PMC. I'll
probably be back some day when I have a reason to justify
the time and focus.
/salute
Thanks Roy - we all look forward to having you back. Till then
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Sorry to be blunt. Can it! - That's what we did with TSIK. There's
no point continuing incubation. We are not here to serve the interests
of parties/corporations.
Dims - I agree with you, with fair warning. It's clear that the committers
and actual authors are still
Recordon, David wrote:
Hi all,
As Ted mentioned there was a thread started yesterday by Kevin Turner (
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-heraldry-dev/200701.m
box/[EMAIL PROTECTED]) about how JanRain really
is now committed to moving all of their work into the Heraldry
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Bill, do you have some cycles to spare helping out with this project?
I'll periodically poke my nose in to help - but it won't be in the next
three weeks. I'll certainly observe enough to offer them some thoughts
for their 1/month report updates, in terms of moving
phoenix.apache.org?
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
On 12/24/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually ... what if we were to establish an area under incubator/,
which we
need anyway for podlings that get retired, and allow whichever PMCs are
currently responsible for them to move all
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Is this about competing podlings? or existing projects/new podlings?
The Competing Projects thread is a general umbrella of how the incubator
should approach any two proposed podlings that overlap in scope, or a
proposed podling that overlaps in scope with an existing
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I think it's a concern because the precedent puts the podling on the
defensive and in the mind set of oh, if there's a competing project,
we won't accept you. The fact that there's a project already here
that
Phil Steitz wrote:
I would like to join the Incubator PMC. I am an ASF member and,
pending a positive acceptance vote, will be serving as a mentor for
the new River project.
Such requests from ASF Members should be addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and Noel's empowered to act on them directly.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
If an officer believes that a release package should be vetoed
for legal reasons, then they should inform infrastructure to remove
the release from distribution.
Take that one step further...
s/officer/officer or member/
Any PMC member who discovers a legal violation
Jim Jagielski wrote:
As long as 3 people within the PMC attest to its validity, the
release can go out. AFAIK, only a legal veto can block
a release. In most cases, of course, the community listens
and responds to any -1 votes and tries to address them,
if need be. Ignoring -1's is bad
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
There is a large body of usage outside the ASF that is documented on
the NSIS website as well. As for other Windows-only options, httpd
distributes an MSI installer for Windows, but I have no knowledge of
how that is actually generated.
InstallShield. Actually, IS did
Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote for
the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that
Robert mentions.
We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating
release
Remember version numbers are
Martin Ritchie wrote:
Do you wait for them to release?
Yes
Or ship patched, with a patch that is approved with the release. But that's
usually not the best choice if you can get some traction at the project that
has the flaw.
It raises an interesting question, can ASF project X 'release'
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 11/14/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, I withdraw my -1.
Ditto. -- justin
Heh - we had no -1 to withdraw, I agreed with you Justin that lazy
concensus is wrong, but we hadn't put a -1 to the actual release.
That's why I replied to your note and
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 11/14/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More than 72 hours have passed, and presumably everybody on the
incubator PMC that cares to vote has done so (Thanks Robert!). Please
proceed with the release.
If anybody objects to this process, point them my way.
401 - 500 of 652 matches
Mail list logo
