On 25.06.2015 09:17, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Am 24.06.2015 23:32, schrieb Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH):
For HTTPd I was referring to the assertion from Justin earlier in
this thread FWIW, httpd always had nightly tarballs available for
consumption and testing. (though reading that now I wonder
Am 26.06.2015 11:39, schrieb Jochen Theodorou:
Am 26.06.2015 09:19, schrieb Branko Čibej:
On 25.06.2015 09:17, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
nightly source tarballs? Is that really a thing?
Yes, it is, why wouldn't it be? Httpd isn't even written in Java, and
yet it can actually run on
Am 26.06.2015 09:19, schrieb Branko Čibej:
On 25.06.2015 09:17, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
nightly source tarballs? Is that really a thing?
Yes, it is, why wouldn't it be? Httpd isn't even written in Java, and
yet it can actually run on computers! :)
I was asking because whoever is able
Am 24.06.2015 23:32, schrieb Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH):
For HTTPd I was referring to the assertion from Justin earlier in this thread
FWIW, httpd always had nightly tarballs available for consumption and testing.
(though reading that now I wonder if he meant source tarballs - which is an
Am 24.06.2015 22:32, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny:
Le 24/06/15 22:28, David Nalley a écrit :
[...]
More generally to the underlying issue that prompted this discussion:
With the concrete example of Geode's DockerHub presence, I don't think
it's acceptable:
Le 25/06/15 09:21, Jochen Theodorou a écrit :
Am 24.06.2015 22:32, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny:
Le 24/06/15 22:28, David Nalley a écrit :
[...]
More generally to the underlying issue that prompted this discussion:
With the concrete example of Geode's DockerHub presence, I don't think
it's
On Jun 25, 2015 3:01 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 25/06/15 09:21, Jochen Theodorou a écrit :
Am 24.06.2015 22:32, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny:
Le 24/06/15 22:28, David Nalley a écrit :
[...]
More generally to the underlying issue that prompted this discussion:
With
Am 25.06.2015 15:13, schrieb Sean Busbey:
[...]
If the Docker Hub page wasn't under the control of the Geode PMC, then I'd
say it was a marks violation and they'd have to seek out control of it or
removal.
can you explain me how that is a marks violation?
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen blackdrag
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
...My understanding is that the Docker Hub page is under the control of the
Geode PMC
There's no Geode PMC, as it's a podling the Incubator PMC is in charge
of their releases.
Even if you ignore the fact that projects
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
...My understanding is that the Docker Hub page is under the control of
the
Geode PMC
There's no Geode PMC, as it's a podling
On 24/06/2015 18:02, Markus Weimer mar...@weimo.de wrote:
Personally I think the policy should be clarified such that nightly
builds
MUST only live on ASF infrastructure (whether that be the Nexus
SNAPSHOTs
repo, committer web space etc). As soon as you start putting them on
external
+1
Personally I think the policy should be clarified such that nightly builds
MUST only live on ASF infrastructure (whether that be the Nexus SNAPSHOTs
repo, committer web space etc). As soon as you start putting them on
external services like DockerHub then they are potentially widely
On 24/06/2015 04:12, Justin Erenkrantz justin.erenkra...@gmail.com on
behalf of jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
There is
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
There is nothing preventing clearly identifiable non-release artifacts
available to the general public.
The Releases Policy page forbids it explicitly:
During the process of developing software
Le 24/06/15 22:28, David Nalley a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
+1 (to this and Jochen's response)
Roman was explicit in his question about clearly identifiable non-release
artifacts available to the general public.
Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:29 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream
integration binary artifacts
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
+1 (to this and Jochen's response)
Roman was explicit in his question about clearly identifiable non-release
artifacts available to the general public. We can debate words on a page
forever, or
Le 24/06/15 14:04, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
There is nothing preventing clearly identifiable non-release artifacts
available to the general public.
The Releases Policy page forbids it explicitly:
Am 24.06.2015 14:04, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
What differentiates the general public from developers is whether they are
aware of the conditions placed on the artifacts and thus exercising informed
consent.
What I don't understand is, why I am exercising informed consent if I
read the
From: Emmanuel Lécharnymailto:elecha...@gmail.com
Sent: 6/24/2015 7:38 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream
integration binary artifacts
Le 24/06/15 14:04, Marvin Humphrey
Good point.
Furthermore, for users of those project, it might be more painful to get
binaries in an usual Apache place compared to a community / blessed
approach.
Le mercredi 24 juin 2015, Markus Weimer mar...@weimo.de a écrit :
Personally I think the policy should be clarified such that
non-release, downstream
integration binary artifacts
Personally I think the policy should be clarified such that nightly
builds MUST only live on ASF infrastructure (whether that be the Nexus
SNAPSHOTs repo, committer web space etc). As soon as you start
putting them on external services
Personally I think the policy should be clarified such that nightly builds
MUST only live on ASF infrastructure (whether that be the Nexus SNAPSHOTs
repo, committer web space etc). As soon as you start putting them on
external services like DockerHub then they are potentially widely visible
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
We can debate words on a page forever, or we can work with the intent and
get on with producing software.
Amen. So when's that Geode release coming?
My summary of the intent: Don't advertise
Le 24/06/15 19:21, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
We can debate words on a page forever, or we can work with the intent and
get on with producing software.
Amen. So when's that Geode release coming?
Le 24/06/15 09:19, Rob Vesse a écrit :
Personally I think the policy should be clarified such that nightly
builds MUST only live on ASF infrastructure
Non sense. Nightly built can stay wherever is suitable. It's not The ASF
business anyway, The ASF does not endorse nighly build or non-release
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 24/06/15 09:19, Rob Vesse a écrit :
Personally I think the policy should be clarified such that nightly
builds MUST only live on ASF infrastructure
Non sense. Nightly built can stay wherever is suitable. It's not
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:21 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
...Tomcat, for instance, pushed out 4 releases in the month
of May alone. It looks like they exceeded 20 releases in 2014. And
there are plenty of projects doing more releases than Tomcat...
Yes. Grepping for
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Am 23.06.2015 07:16, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
How am I supposed to invite all the downstream developers of the
world to start integrating with my awesome feature FOO before it
gets formally released when our
On 6/23/15, 3:11 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Am 23.06.2015 07:16, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
How am I supposed to invite all the downstream developers of the
world to start integrating with my awesome feature FOO before it
gets formally released when our policy makes
On Jun 23, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote:
Am 23.06.2015 07:16, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
How am I supposed to invite all the downstream developers of the
world to start integrating with my awesome feature FOO before it
gets formally released when our
Hi,
2015-06-23 9:22 GMT-04:00 Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com:
There was one attempt to try to do serious IP review on every
commit in order to avoid 72 hours at vote time. I’m not sure
what happened to that proposal.
One related thread was http://markmail.org/message/jyicon7nkmfnf322
I never
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:21 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
So I see a bit of nuance here.
The project should not be promoting/advertising non-released artifacts
outside of it's own developer community (e.g. the folks who actually
develop Apache $foo)
The developer, however, may want
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
The distinction is between people who develop the Apache product, and
those who use the Apache product.
Well, that's part of the reason behind me starting this thread: I think
it is time for us to explicitly
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
There is nothing preventing clearly identifiable non-release artifacts
available to the general public. Many projects make automated nightly builds
available for example.
This! Honestly this has
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
There is nothing preventing clearly identifiable non-release artifacts
available to the general public. Many projects make automated nightly
builds available for example.
The release policy
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
There is nothing preventing clearly identifiable non-release artifacts
available to the general public. Many projects
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
While I agree that this is a general issue that should be discussed, an
example might help. This discussion started because the Geode PMC is
publishing a docker artifact from their nightly builds and then pointing
the
Am 23.06.2015 07:16, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
How am I supposed to invite all the downstream developers of the
world to start integrating with my awesome feature FOO before it
gets formally released when our policy makes statement like:
If the general public is being instructed to download
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
Hi!
let me start by saying that I feel proud about the
rigor with which ASF approaches management
of the ultimate foundation deliverables: the source
releases put out by our communities. If you read our
policy
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
Yep, that’s the “tax” of Apache. IMO, its main reason for existing is to
make users of ASF projects feel comfortable incorporating our source into
their projects because we’ve done our due diligence on the IP/legal stuff
on
/2015 12:23 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream
integration binary artifacts
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
The distinction is between
On 6/23/15, 4:16 PM, shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik
shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
Yep, that’s the “tax” of Apache. IMO, its main reason for existing is
to
make users of ASF
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
The biggest source of confusion that I personally witnessed
comes from interpreting 'general public' vs. 'developers'.
The problem there seems to come from the false assumption
that our projects always have a user base
44 matches
Mail list logo
