I really don't care one way or the other for the terminology we use and,
as VP Phoenix, am happy to use whatever terminology is deemed "most
correct".
If anything, I like Justin's use of "exited" to not attach feelings to
how a podling leaves the incubator. I think attaching "good" and "bad"
Hi,
I think I would call a project that exited the incubator, but still at the ASF
with a community around it and PMC oversight. a success.
It didn’t graduate as a TLP, and nor was it sponsored by the project it ended
up it just took a different path.
Thanks,
Justin
Ok my mistake about Solr. I thought it was a TLP.
As to the second half of what I said still this doesn’t look like a failure to
gain a community and stable management. Omid and Tephra code is now under
Phoenix. The Phoenix TLP has a community and stable management. Just like
Lucene has
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 21, 2019, at 2:10 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>
> Those aren’t comparable though, right?
>
> Solr was a sub project that graduated to a TLP.
Solr is a sub project of Lucene.
>
> Omid and Tephra are projects that instead of beco
Those aren’t comparable though, right?
Solr was a sub project that graduated to a TLP.
Omid and Tephra are projects that instead of becoming TLP’s “graduated” into
the existing Phoenix TLP.
Not the same thing.
And also I don’t believe this result is unsuccessful. Neither Omid or Tephra
lly graduate that would need a board proposal would it not?
To graduate as a TLP yes. To graduate as a subproject of an existing TLP no. [1]
So there are two kinds of graduation as a subproject: successful like Solr,
DistributedLog, … and unsuccessful like Omid and Tephra. Certainly the
“su
HI,
> I’m going to change podlings.xml to reflect these as “graduated”. If after
> discussion we have consensus to change these to “retired” then the change is
> easy.
To officially graduate that would need a board proposal would it not?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi -
We are calling the movement of Omid and Tephra graduation to a project. To me
this looks more like retirement where a podling moves on to a new place after
failing to incubate. This distinction makes no difference to the podling. It
does matter to the Incubator as we measure our success
t;>>>>>> sponsor="Incubator" startdate="2016-03-28”>
>>>>
>>>> must be
>>>>
>>>>>>> sponsor="Incubator" startdate="2016-03-28” enddate=“2019-11-8”>
>&
gt;>
>>> >> sponsor="Incubator" startdate="2016-03-28”>
>>>
>>> must be
>>>
>>> >> sponsor="Incubator" startdate="2016-03-28” enddate=“2019-11-8”>
>>>
>>> Whimsy may very
;>
>> must be
>>
>> > sponsor="Incubator" startdate="2016-03-28” enddate=“2019-11-8”>
>>
>> Whimsy may very well break unless this is fixed. The daily Incubator site
>> update may break as well.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> > On Nov 8, 2019, at 1:25 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
> >
> > I've updated the status of Omid and Tephra to 'graduating' in
> > podlings.xml. I've also updated the projects/${podling}.xml for each of
> > them with info on the SGAs (which hadn't be
Hi Alan,
The podlings.xml change is not really correct. It’s not documented but instead
of you need to have a something like this for each:
https://phoenix.apache.org/omid/“/>
This creates the a link on the table on https://incubator.apache.org/projects
Also, there is no “graduating”
I've updated the status of Omid and Tephra to 'graduating' in
podlings.xml. I've also updated the projects/${podling}.xml for each of
them with info on the SGAs (which hadn't been put there) and on their
status as graduating into Phoenix.
I'll let the Phoenix PMC deal with github, JIRA, mailing
Hi,
> I don't think so. I'll wait the 72 hours for the comment period to end
> (started this morning) and then add a note to the report that Omid and
> Tephra are graduating into Phoenix, unless Justin prefers something else.
That's fine I’ve already note this in the report.
Thank
I don't think so. I'll wait the 72 hours for the comment period to end
(started this morning) and then add a note to the report that Omid and
Tephra are graduating into Phoenix, unless Justin prefers something else.
Alan.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:14 PM Andreas Neumann wrote:
> Should Tep
t; On Nov 5, 2019, at 11:50 AM, Alan Gates wrote:
> >
> > Omid[1] and Tephra[2] have voted to join the Phoenix community as
> > sub-projects. Phoenix has voted to accept them[3]. Per the instructions
> > at [4], this email is notice of that. Unless any objections are rais
For the changes to podlings.xml one example of a graduation to a subproject is
DistributedLog.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 5, 2019, at 11:50 AM, Alan Gates wrote:
>
> Omid[1] and Tephra[2] have voted to join the Phoenix community as
> sub-projects. Phoen
Omid[1] and Tephra[2] have voted to join the Phoenix community as
sub-projects. Phoenix has voted to accept them[3]. Per the instructions
at [4], this email is notice of that. Unless any objections are raised in
72 hours the graduation will be considered accepted and both podlings will
move
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/grants/caskdata-tephra
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 15:16, Alan Gates wrote:
>
> Regarding SGAs, here's the JIRA for Omid:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OMID-2
> According to
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/foundation/officers/grants.txt
Regarding SGAs, here's the JIRA for Omid:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OMID-2
According to
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/foundation/officers/grants.txt Cask
(original creators of Tephra) submitted a SGA for it and it's one file, but
I don't know where the referenced file is kept.
Bertand, thanks for bringing this up. I'll chase those down.
Alan.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 8:46 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 3:55 PM Josh Elser wrote:
> > ...My current expectation is that we'd just rename the existing Git
> >
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 3:55 PM Josh Elser wrote:
> ...My current expectation is that we'd just rename the existing Git
> repositories and change the LDAP group which are used to determine write
> access...
>From the Incubator's point of view, I think an additional step is to
confirm and
don’t get enough votes or if someone raises an objection
we’ll decide what to do then.
One question that I'd like to see resolved as part of this vote
is what status Phoenix plans to grant to Tephra and Omid committers and
PPMC members.
I would ask all PPMC and committers if they want
Shacham wrote:
+1, Thanks Alan.
Just wanted to verify that adopt means Omid and Tephra will sit in the same
repo as Phoenix but will be able to checkout separately as well. I assume
this is Phoenix folks decision.
I know that in Yahoo Omid is used internally.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:36 AM Gary
Makes sense. I've replied to the discussion in the Phoenix community so we
know what terms Tephra and Omid are voting on. As soon as I hear from them
I'll start votes in both communities.
Alan.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 3:47 PM Andreas Neumann wrote:
> I agree with Justin, I think we
ses
> an objection we’ll decide what to do then.
>
> > One question that I'd like to see resolved as part of this vote
> > is what status Phoenix plans to grant to Tephra and Omid committers and
> > PPMC members.
>
> I would ask all PPMC and committers if they want to be part o
mentors have binding votes so hopefully
they will vote. If we don’t get enough votes or if someone raises an objection
we’ll decide what to do then.
> One question that I'd like to see resolved as part of this vote
> is what status Phoenix plans to grant to Tephra and Omid committers and
> P
There appears to be consensus on this thread, as well as in the Phoenix
community[1] that it makes sense for Phoenix to adopt both Omid and
Tephra. My mails to the Tephra and Omid communities[2][3] have gone
unanswered, so I assume silence implies consent.
According to [4] the first step
+1, Thanks Alan.
Just wanted to verify that adopt means Omid and Tephra will sit in the same
repo as Phoenix but will be able to checkout separately as well. I assume
this is Phoenix folks decision.
I know that in Yahoo Omid is used internally.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:36 AM Gary Helmling wrote
+1 this seems like the best option.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 2:29 PM Andrew Purtell wrote:
> +1 this would be a good outcome. Both Tephra and OMID are good
> technologies, with respective pros and cons, and Phoenix can make good use
> of both of them, should they choose to accept
+1 this would be a good outcome. Both Tephra and OMID are good
technologies, with respective pros and cons, and Phoenix can make good use
of both of them, should they choose to accept ownership of the code.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:26 AM Alan Gates wrote:
> Justin and mentors of O
On 2019/10/23 18:16:31, Alan Gates wrote:
> Justin and mentors of Omid and Tephra,
>
> As Justin noted in his emails to these podlings this month both are very
> low activity, struggling to even file their reports, and appear to be
> candidates for retirement.
>
&g
Hi,
> So before we push them into retirement I believe we should involve the
> Phoenix PMC and see if they want to adopt either or both of these, with the
> knowledge that they will likely be getting minimal contributions from
> current members of those projects going forward. If others are ok
t; > +1, good idea.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On 23/10/2019 20:16, Alan Gates wrote:
> > > Justin and mentors of Omid and Tephra,
> > >
> > > As Justin noted in his emails to these podlings this month both are
> very
&g
Hi,
+1
Kind Regards,
Furkan KAMACI
24 Eki 2019 Per, saat 07:11 tarihinde Jean-Baptiste Onofré
şunu yazdı:
> +1, good idea.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 23/10/2019 20:16, Alan Gates wrote:
> > Justin and mentors of Omid and Tephra,
> >
> > As Justin noted in his
+1, good idea.
Regards
JB
On 23/10/2019 20:16, Alan Gates wrote:
Justin and mentors of Omid and Tephra,
As Justin noted in his emails to these podlings this month both are very
low activity, struggling to even file their reports, and appear to be
candidates for retirement.
The situation here
er wrote:
> >
> >> +1. That’s a good idea.
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Oct 23, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Alan Gates wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Justin and mentors of Omid and Tephra,
> >>>
> >>>
+1
-Flavio
> On 23 Oct 2019, at 21:08, Terence Yim wrote:
>
> +1 on this
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:36 Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> +1. That’s a good idea.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Alan Gates wro
+1 on this
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:36 Dave Fisher wrote:
> +1. That’s a good idea.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Oct 23, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Alan Gates wrote:
> >
> > Justin and mentors of Omid and Tephra,
> >
> > As Justin noted in his emails
+1. That’s a good idea.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 23, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Alan Gates wrote:
>
> Justin and mentors of Omid and Tephra,
>
> As Justin noted in his emails to these podlings this month both are very
> low activity, struggling to even file their r
Justin and mentors of Omid and Tephra,
As Justin noted in his emails to these podlings this month both are very
low activity, struggling to even file their reports, and appear to be
candidates for retirement.
The situation here is somewhat special because Phoenix uses one or both
42 matches
Mail list logo
