Hi all,
Apache Zeppelin community has voted on following RC to be releaseed
as official Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.0-incubating release.
Since this is first release after under Apache Incubator,
we would like to hear more feedback from incubator community
and please help to verify and vote
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
[...]
And if folks are interested in other stories about release process
inefficiency, I will write to some Cordova folks off-list and ask them to
add their thoughts to this thread.
Hmm this might be interesting, to see if
That’s why it would be great to have Justin write up a “This is how I test
a release” page somewhere that explains how he goes about it. Mentors and
release managers should be able to generate the same data sets and try to
interpret it in the same way early in the release process. You still may
On 7/17/15, 3:09 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
that would not change anything. What makes things complicated is
points of human interaction in the middle of the release process. That
won't be different with a better tuned CI
I'm puzzled. Cédric said in a previous mail that
Hello
The Apache NiFi team would like to announce the release of Apache NiFi
0.2.0-incubating.
Apache NiFi is an easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process and
distribute data. Apache NiFi was made for dataflow. It supports highly
configurable directed graphs of data routing,
My -0 wasn't really reflecting on the quality of the release, but was rather
about this long standing issue with broken format of the checksum files (which
was making the validation harder) .
I see that the issue is getting addressed for the next release, hence I'm
changing my vote to
+1
My -0 wasn't really reflecting on the quality of the release, but rather an
issue with broken format of the checksum files (which was making the validation
harder) .
I see that the issue is getting addressed for the next release, hence I'm
changing my vote to
+1 (binding)
--
Regards,
Cos
Lets be clear, what I was referring to is this: the identified LN issue
is a non-code change that has no implication to the stability of your
release whatsoever. Hence manually fixing it, re-spinning the RC and
calling a shortened (12-24h) vote doesn't seem to present a problem
First of all,
Thanks Justin. We had read that document, but even reading the binary
section, it wasn't clear that source and binary LN had to be
different. I would suggest to update the page to make it clear that
These additional dependencies must be accounted for in LICENSE and
NOTICE. doesn't mean that the
Fantastic! Is this going to hit the download site soon?
https://nifi.incubator.apache.org/download.html
Ryan
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Matt Gilman matt.c.gil...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello
The release passes with
4 +1 (binding) votes
0 -1 (binding) votes
Thanks to all who helped make
Le 17/07/15 01:02, Justin Mclean a écrit :
Hi,
+1 ! And adding such a tool into rat or whatever would be extremely
helpful, too...
The “tools” I use generally make a bit of noise and require some
interpretation / filtering so I’m not sure they could be automated cleanly.
One thing rat
Le 17/07/15 09:21, Cédric Champeau a écrit :
Lets be clear, what I was referring to is this: the identified LN issue
is a non-code change that has no implication to the stability of your
release whatsoever. Hence manually fixing it, re-spinning the RC and
calling a shortened (12-24h) vote
Le 17/07/15 09:28, Cédric Champeau a écrit :
Thanks Justin. We had read that document, but even reading the binary
section, it wasn't clear that source and binary LN had to be
different.
Guiding Principle :
The |LICENSE| and |NOTICE| files must *exactly* represent the contents
of the
Realizing I forgot the link to the release doc (WIP):
http://groovy-lang.org/wiki/incubation-release-process.html
2015-07-17 9:31 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com:
Le 17/07/15 09:21, Cédric Champeau a écrit :
Lets be clear, what I was referring to is this: the identified LN issue
On 7/17/15, 3:05 AM, Paul King pa...@asert.com.au wrote:
On 13/07/2015 10:12 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
[...snip...]
- Short form of bundled licenses are preferred to long version
[...snip...]
One thing I forgot to ask. What does short form mean? We can have
a URL link to the license text? Or
On 7/17/15, 7:05 AM, Guillaume Laforge glafo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
[...]
And if folks are interested in other stories about release process
inefficiency, I will write to some Cordova folks off-list and ask them
to
add their
On 17/07/2015 8:09 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Le 17/07/15 12:02, Jochen Theodorou a écrit :
Am 17.07.2015 09:31, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny:
[...]
Now, I'm a bit scared : why the hell can't we make it easier to cut a
release at Apache for this project ? I mean, the infrastructure should
not
Am 17.07.2015 09:31, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny:
[...]
Now, I'm a bit scared : why the hell can't we make it easier to cut a
release at Apache for this project ? I mean, the infrastructure should
not be a limitation here : we do have a CI, we most certainly can tune
it to fit Groovy.
that would
On 13/07/2015 10:12 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
[...snip...]
- Short form of bundled licenses are preferred to long version
[...snip...]
One thing I forgot to ask. What does short form mean? We can have
a URL link to the license text? Or something else?
Thanks, Paul.
---
This email has been
Le 17/07/15 12:02, Jochen Theodorou a écrit :
Am 17.07.2015 09:31, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny:
[...]
Now, I'm a bit scared : why the hell can't we make it easier to cut a
release at Apache for this project ? I mean, the infrastructure should
not be a limitation here : we do have a CI, we most
I'm particularly interested in the build / release aspect here. What were
the Cordova struggles.
For the LN, that's indeed a human task that has to be done once (plus some
Rat automated checks)
What I'd like is to be able to automate the release as much as possible,
with the least error prone
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com
wrote:
What is the notificati...@yetus.apache.org list for?
- Henry
internal build notifications, commits to git. basically all the automated
message stuff.
--
Sean
Have Jun add themselves to the interested contributors section and we'll
get them started.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to nominate Jun Aoki (a committer on Apache Ambari)
for this project. He's done a lot of integration work with
The Usergrid project is happy to announce that the Usergrid 1.0.2 release
is now available for download.
Apache Usergrid (incubating) is a multi-tenant Backend-as-a-Service (BaaS)
stack for web and mobile applications, based on RESTful APIs. Usergrid
consists of a Java-based web application that
Hello, Lens people!
In the future, please ensure that *all* release announcements include the
Incubating Disclaimer in them. Your download page should be updated
(asap) to include the same.
Thanks,
-g
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Amareshwari Sriramdasu
amareshw...@apache.org wrote:
Hi
Thanks for taking the time to review Justin, we appreciate it.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote:
Hi,
Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / explained,
other issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may be
Hi,
I’ve having little trouble compiling it, but everything else checks out fine.
Are there instructions anywhere on how to compile/what’s required? I think I’m
just running into a memory issue.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- release artefact contains incubating
- signatures and md5 hash good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE good
- No unexpected binaries in source release
- All source files contain Apache headers
- Can compile from source
Some compile instructions in the README.md
Hi,
Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / explained,
other issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may be that For
small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime
in source form” may apply. [2]
For the source release I
Hi Cos,
Thanks for providing a thoughtfully documented review.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
+1 (binding)
Please consider fixing in the next release:
- sha checksum is formatted in a way that makes automatic validation (with
sha512sum -c )
+1 (binding)
Checked the sha checksum and the signature - Ok.
Built/ran RAT check - Ok. Some tests are failing during the verify phase, but I
guess it doesn't make the release invalid.
Please consider fixing in the next release:
- sha checksum is formatted in a way that makes automatic
Can more IPMC folks look at the release as we getting to the end of the VOTE
period? Still one vote short. Thanks!
Cos
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:51PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
Hello!
The Apache Ignite PPMC has voted to release Apache Ignite 1.3.0-incubating.
The vote was based on the release
32 matches
Mail list logo
