date:20150722

Hmm...

Also, if you look at the JIRA in question, the question of what is
happening is also not resovled:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1015

There are no comments, nor any linkage to the commit history.

This could definitely be improved.  It is important to take the course
that Julian has done and see the project as an outsider would.  Can
this hypothetical outsider decipher what happened?

It sounds from Julian and Brane's input that the mailing list works
for this, but that there is no good way to correlate that back to the
code.  I would be happy to be contradicted on this, but I can't easily
connect starting from the JIRA to the commit logs.

This should be easy to fix.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Julian Hyde jh...@apache.org wrote:
 I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a 
 split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the 
 Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult 
 to decipher.

 In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch 
 'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are 
 typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases that 
 could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that 
 development is been driven by off-list meetings.

 If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers, I 
 think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the excellent 
 transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.

 Julian

 [1] 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
 [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master



 On Jul 22, 2015, at 12:14 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:

 On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
 Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
 this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that
 the 37% are actually active, that is).

 Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
 the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.

 I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
 outside, and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
 community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
 wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
 graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
 rather than the other way around.

 I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an open and diverse
 community should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
 months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
 incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
 using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
 effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.

 -- Brane


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Pierre Smits

Re: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1015

This also happens in other projects I visited. Issues start out small, and
over time they grow towards completeness (description, better subject, etc)
based on the feedback provided via comments and via on and off list
interactions. One issue shouldn't be worrisome.

But if there are more that don't get enhanced explanation-wise, or even
many similar issues but resolved and closed as fixed or implemented, over a
longer period of time then it looks like more is at play.

Maybe it is something innocent that can be easily cured, such as ignorance.
But it might also an indication of in-crowd behaviour, that there is no
need to inform the outside or worse. Mentors should have an eye for this
and report and address it.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com*
Services  Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail  Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

Re: Last chance to tell your story at ApacheCON EU 2015

2015-07-22 Thread Richard Downer

Hi Roman,

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 at 21:04 Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:

 Both regular talks and speed dating proposals are currently tracked
 over here: https://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/ACEU15Incubator
 However, as of today we've got less that 20% participation rate from
 poddlings.


Sorry I'm a bit late! I've modified the wiki page to add Brooklyn to the
list of full talks, and volunteer myself for a shark tank talk.

Cheers
Richard.

Re: Last chance to tell your story at ApacheCON EU 2015

On 22 July 2015 at 10:17, Richard Downer rich...@apache.org wrote:

 Hi Roman,

 On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 at 21:04 Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:

  Both regular talks and speed dating proposals are currently tracked
  over here: https://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/ACEU15Incubator
  However, as of today we've got less that 20% participation rate from
  poddlings.
 

 Sorry I'm a bit late! I've modified the wiki page to add Brooklyn to the
 list of full talks, and volunteer myself for a shark tank talk.


??? Confused, the schedule is fixed and talks have been grouped, changes in
the wiki page made now is
only for historic reasons and will in no way be moved to the schedule.

The shark tank is different.

on behalf of the apachecon team
jan i.



 Cheers
 Richard.

Re: Last chance to tell your story at ApacheCON EU 2015

2015-07-22 Thread Luke Han

Hi there,
We have submitted proposal for Apache Kylin, but not see the update
there on the wiki.
Is that ok or should we do something else?

Thanks.




Best Regards!
-

Luke Han

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:32 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:

 On 22 July 2015 at 10:17, Richard Downer rich...@apache.org wrote:

  Hi Roman,
 
  On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 at 21:04 Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
 
   Both regular talks and speed dating proposals are currently tracked
   over here: https://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/ACEU15Incubator
   However, as of today we've got less that 20% participation rate from
   poddlings.
  
 
  Sorry I'm a bit late! I've modified the wiki page to add Brooklyn to the
  list of full talks, and volunteer myself for a shark tank talk.
 

 ??? Confused, the schedule is fixed and talks have been grouped, changes in
 the wiki page made now is
 only for historic reasons and will in no way be moved to the schedule.

 The shark tank is different.

 on behalf of the apachecon team
 jan i.


 
  Cheers
  Richard.

Re: Kylin mentor

2015-07-22 Thread Luke Han

Hi Taylor,
 We are really glad you could be our mentor, really appreciated and
looking forward to work with you.

 Could you please help to edit files like Marvin mentioned above?

 Thank you very much.


Best Regards!
-

Luke Han

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Luke,

 I’d be willing to act as a mentor to Kylin.

 If that’s okay with the Kylin community, let me know and I’ll update
 appropriate files.

 -Taylor

  On Jul 21, 2015, at 3:13 AM, Luke Han luke...@apache.org wrote:
 
  Thanks Julian to step up, as previous advisor, you already give us a lot
 of
  help and guide.
  Really appreciated to be Apache Kylin's official mentor.
 
  If anyone else would like to help us, please also leave message here.
 
  Thank you very much.
 
  Luke
 
  On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Julian Hyde jh...@apache.org wrote:
 
  Done. Thanks.
 
  On Jul 20, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
  wrote:
 
  On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Julian Hyde jh...@apache.org wrote:
  The Kylin project has said that they would like more mentors. I have
  been mentoring unofficially for a while, and am happy to become an
 official
  mentor. I am already an IPMC member.
 
  Sounds great!
 
  There's no formal process for adding Mentors beyond gauging the
  consent of the podling community.  Please add yourself as a Kylin
  Mentor to...
 
  *   content/podlings.xml
  *   content/projects/kylin.xml
 
  Marvin Humphrey
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Branko Čibej

On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
 Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
 this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that
 the 37% are actually active, that is).

Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.

I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
outside, and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
rather than the other way around.

I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an open and diverse
community should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.

-- Brane


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.0-incubating

2015-07-22 Thread Edward J. Yoon

 On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have contacted
 the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with the
 proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
 (incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
 So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other issues
 raised here, over the next release.

 Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you more
 comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?

+1

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Alexander Bezzubov
abezzu...@nflabs.com wrote:
 Got it, thank you very much, Justin, for the explanation!

 On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have contacted
 the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with the
 proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
 (incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
 So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other issues
 raised here, over the next release.

 Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you more
 comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?

 Please let us know.

 Thanks in advance.

 --
 Kind regards,
 Alexander

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com 
 wrote:
 Hi,

 Regarding the issue raised by Edward - we were under impression that
 this particular contribution is covered by
 https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/NOTICE#L53
 (as we use the code from
 https://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=1361 that was not
 merged to the selenium, keeping the attribution)

 It depends on how that original code is licensed and if you have permission 
 to use the code from the author. I don't know the exact particulars, and it 
 may be fine, but it seem unclear to me. This probably doesn’t have to be 
 sorted in the this release but would need to be sorted before graduation, 
 but other IPMC member may hold different opinions.

 Thanks,
 Justin
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org




 --
 --
 Kind regards,
 Alexander.

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org




-- 
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Last chance to tell your story at ApacheCON EU 2015

2015-07-22 Thread Richard Downer

Hi Jan,

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 at 09:32 jan i j...@apache.org wrote:

  Sorry I'm a bit late! I've modified the wiki page to add Brooklyn to the
  list of full talks, and volunteer myself for a shark tank talk.
 
 ??? Confused, the schedule is fixed and talks have been grouped, changes in
 the wiki page made now is
 only for historic reasons and will in no way be moved to the schedule.


Brooklyn is on the conference schedule, we have 3 (!) talks in ApacheCon
Core [1][2][3]. But the wiki page section Podlings with regular talks
currently submitted didn't show Brooklyn as having a regular talk so I
updated it. If I've misinterpreted the meaning of this section then I (or
anyone) can revert it.

The shark tank is different.


Yes, I assumed that the shark tank schedule is more flexible, but I do know
that I am late, and I may have missed my chance here.

Cheers
Richard

[1]http://sched.co/3x1G
[2]http://sched.co/3x2p
[3]http://sched.co/3x5L

Re: Last chance to tell your story at ApacheCON EU 2015

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015, Richard Downer rich...@apache.org wrote:

 Hi Jan,

 On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 at 09:32 jan i j...@apache.org javascript:; wrote:

   Sorry I'm a bit late! I've modified the wiki page to add Brooklyn to
 the
   list of full talks, and volunteer myself for a shark tank talk.
  
  ??? Confused, the schedule is fixed and talks have been grouped, changes
 in
  the wiki page made now is
  only for historic reasons and will in no way be moved to the schedule.
 

 Brooklyn is on the conference schedule, we have 3 (!) talks in ApacheCon
 Core [1][2][3]. But the wiki page section Podlings with regular talks
 currently submitted didn't show Brooklyn as having a regular talk so I
 updated it. If I've misinterpreted the meaning of this section then I (or
 anyone) can revert it.


We used the section while creating the schedule, now it is just a historic
refrence, no need to revert what you did.


 The shark tank is different.
 

 Yes, I assumed that the shark tank schedule is more flexible, but I do know
 that I am late, and I may have missed my chance here.

I believe Roman is keeping that open as long as there are space.

rgds
jan i


 Cheers
 Richard

 [1]http://sched.co/3x1G
 [2]http://sched.co/3x2p
 [3]http://sched.co/3x5L



-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Re: Last chance to tell your story at ApacheCON EU 2015

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015, Luke Han luke...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi there,
 We have submitted proposal for Apache Kylin, but not see the update
 there on the wiki.
 Is that ok or should we do something else?

See the other replies. Wiki was solely used in the preparation.

The schedule for apachecon CORE has just been published, and apache big
data is expected to folllow next week.

rgds
jan i


 Thanks.




 Best Regards!
 -

 Luke Han

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:32 PM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:;
 wrote:

  On 22 July 2015 at 10:17, Richard Downer rich...@apache.org
 javascript:; wrote:
 
   Hi Roman,
  
   On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 at 21:04 Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org
 javascript:; wrote:
  
Both regular talks and speed dating proposals are currently tracked
over here: https://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/ACEU15Incubator
However, as of today we've got less that 20% participation rate from
poddlings.
   
  
   Sorry I'm a bit late! I've modified the wiki page to add Brooklyn to
 the
   list of full talks, and volunteer myself for a shark tank talk.
  
 
  ??? Confused, the schedule is fixed and talks have been grouped, changes
 in
  the wiki page made now is
  only for historic reasons and will in no way be moved to the schedule.
 
  The shark tank is different.
 
  on behalf of the apachecon team
  jan i.
 
 
  
   Cheers
   Richard.
  
 



-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Twill-0.6.0-incubating

2015-07-22 Thread Justin Mclean

Hi,

+1 binding

I checked:
- release has incubating in name
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE all good
- no binary files in release (makes checking easy)
- all source files have headers
- can compile from source

Not an issue but any reason for this file?
/twill-yarn/src/test/resources/header.txt

Thanks,
Justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.7.0-incubating [rc1]

2015-07-22 Thread Hadrian Zbarcea


+1

I already voted in the PPMC vote, I am pasting below my findings.

Cheers,
Hadrian

--
Excellent work on the release Richard.

* tested the binaries on Linux, they work fine, although not my focus; 
the ASF releases code as source, so I focused more on the source distro

* downloading, building from source works fine, all tests pass
* started the webui (binary and source distro), it works, looks great 
found no issues
* licensing looks ok, although it requires more work which I would 
strongly suggest to be fixed for the next release
 i. there should be not license (LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER) in test 
directories, I already submitted a PR for that
 ii. LICENSE files should be consolidated into one place (./LICENSE) 
and diffs taken care of (e.g. list of jars from 
./usage/dist/src/main/license/LICENSE is lost everywhere else)
 iii. Due to the dependency on bouncycastle, I suspect that a statement 
re: cryptography [1] may be necessary. I can look into it if that's ok 
with you.
* renaming of packages from brooklyn.* to org.apache.brooklyn.* will be 
required for graduation, I strongly encourage that step to be taken care 
of in the next release.
* the brooklyn-install.sh gave me a ton of grief, I had to tail the log 
to figure out what's going on, had to punch in a password a zillion 
times; I ended up setting NOPASSWD:ALL in my sudoers to somewhat 
alleviate the annoyance.




On 07/22/2015 02:49 AM, Richard Downer wrote:

This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache Brooklyn
0.7.0-incubating.

The Apache Brooklyn community have voted in favour of making this release:
Vote thread:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-brooklyn-dev/201507.mbox/%3CCABQFKi1WapCMRUqQ93E7Qow5onKgL3nyG3HW9Cse7vo%2BtUChRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Result email:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-brooklyn-dev/201507.mbox/%3CCABQFKi2aJHHfXGC0xsMFU0odfB5X6FF5xhpHbs93%2BNfS-fNRZw%40mail.gmail.com%3E

We now ask the IPMC to vote on this release.

This release comprises of a source code distribution, and a corresponding
binary distribution, and Maven artifacts.

The source and binary distributions, including signatures, digests, etc.
can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/brooklyn/apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1

The artifact SHA-256 checksums are as follows:
c3b5c581f14b44aed786010ac7c8c2d899ea0ff511135330395a2ff2a30dd5cf
*apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1-bin.tar.gz
cef49056ba6e5bf012746a72600b2cee8e2dfca1c39740c945c456eacd6b6fca
*apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1-bin.zip
8069bfc54e7f811f6b57841167b35661518aa88cabcb070bf05aae2ff1167b5a
*apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1-src.tar.gz
acd2229c44e93e41372fd8b7ea0038f15fe4aaede5a3bcc5056f28a770543b82
*apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1-src.zip

The Nexus staging repository for the Maven artifacts is located at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebrooklyn-1004

All release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/richard.asc

KEYS file available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/brooklyn/KEYS

The artifacts were built from Git commit ID
24a23c5a4fd5967725930b8ceaed61dfbd225980
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-brooklyn.git;a=commit;h=24a23c5a4fd5967725930b8ceaed61dfbd225980


Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Brooklyn 0.7.0-incubating.

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Brooklyn 0.7.0-incubating
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...


Thanks,
Richard Downer



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.7.0-incubating [rc1]

2015-07-22 Thread Richard Downer

This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache Brooklyn
0.7.0-incubating.

The Apache Brooklyn community have voted in favour of making this release:
Vote thread:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-brooklyn-dev/201507.mbox/%3CCABQFKi1WapCMRUqQ93E7Qow5onKgL3nyG3HW9Cse7vo%2BtUChRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Result email:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-brooklyn-dev/201507.mbox/%3CCABQFKi2aJHHfXGC0xsMFU0odfB5X6FF5xhpHbs93%2BNfS-fNRZw%40mail.gmail.com%3E

We now ask the IPMC to vote on this release.

This release comprises of a source code distribution, and a corresponding
binary distribution, and Maven artifacts.

The source and binary distributions, including signatures, digests, etc.
can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/brooklyn/apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1

The artifact SHA-256 checksums are as follows:
c3b5c581f14b44aed786010ac7c8c2d899ea0ff511135330395a2ff2a30dd5cf
*apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1-bin.tar.gz
cef49056ba6e5bf012746a72600b2cee8e2dfca1c39740c945c456eacd6b6fca
*apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1-bin.zip
8069bfc54e7f811f6b57841167b35661518aa88cabcb070bf05aae2ff1167b5a
*apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1-src.tar.gz
acd2229c44e93e41372fd8b7ea0038f15fe4aaede5a3bcc5056f28a770543b82
*apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-incubating-rc1-src.zip

The Nexus staging repository for the Maven artifacts is located at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebrooklyn-1004

All release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/richard.asc

KEYS file available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/brooklyn/KEYS

The artifacts were built from Git commit ID
24a23c5a4fd5967725930b8ceaed61dfbd225980
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-brooklyn.git;a=commit;h=24a23c5a4fd5967725930b8ceaed61dfbd225980


Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Brooklyn 0.7.0-incubating.

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Brooklyn 0.7.0-incubating
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...


Thanks,
Richard Downer

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.0-incubating

+1 (binding)
jan i.

On 22 July 2015 at 10:31, Edward J. Yoon edwardy...@apache.org wrote:

  On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have contacted
  the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with the
  proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
  (incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
  So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other issues
  raised here, over the next release.
 
  Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you more
  comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?

 +1

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Alexander Bezzubov
 abezzu...@nflabs.com wrote:
  Got it, thank you very much, Justin, for the explanation!
 
  On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have contacted
  the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with the
  proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
  (incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
  So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other issues
  raised here, over the next release.
 
  Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you more
  comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?
 
  Please let us know.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  --
  Kind regards,
  Alexander
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com
 wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Regarding the issue raised by Edward - we were under impression that
  this particular contribution is covered by
  https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/NOTICE#L53
  (as we use the code from
  https://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=1361 that was not
  merged to the selenium, keeping the attribution)
 
  It depends on how that original code is licensed and if you have
 permission to use the code from the author. I don't know the exact
 particulars, and it may be fine, but it seem unclear to me. This probably
 doesn’t have to be sorted in the this release but would need to be sorted
 before graduation, but other IPMC member may hold different opinions.
 
  Thanks,
  Justin
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
 
 
  --
  --
  Kind regards,
  Alexander.
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 



 --
 Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Daniel Gruno

On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
 I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a 
 split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the 
 Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult 
 to decipher.
 
 In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch 
 'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are 
 typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases that 
 could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that 
 development is been driven by off-list meetings.
 
 If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers, I 
 think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the excellent 
 transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
 
 Julian
 
 [1] 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
 [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
  
 

The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
hosted at the ASF.

Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.

I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
development process.

With regards,
Daniel.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Julian Hyde

I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a split 
personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the Apache Way. 
Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult to decipher.

In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch 
'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are typical. 
Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases that could 
provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that development is 
been driven by off-list meetings.

If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers, I 
think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the excellent 
transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.

Julian

[1] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
 


On Jul 22, 2015, at 12:14 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:

 On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
 Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
 this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that
 the 37% are actually active, that is).
 
 Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
 the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.
 
 I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
 outside, and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
 community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
 wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
 graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
 rather than the other way around.
 
 I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an open and diverse
 community should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
 months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
 incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
 using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
 effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.
 
 -- Brane
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Valentin Kulichenko

Hi,

I will jump in as I'm also on Ignite PMC.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:50 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:

 Hi

 I am concerned, seen from my POW (and please excuse it is of course my
 personal pow), too many
 questions remain unanswered.

 I am concerned because I would have expected the community to have clear
 answers (independent of whether I agree or not) to
 e.g. the concerns from Daniel.


Sorry for some late responses. It so happens that most of the community
members are on european time zones.


 It seems to me (and I am sorry, being busy, I do not research thing, I
 simply read this thread), that there are issues with the community.

 I recognize that the activity on the ML is diverse FINE !
 Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be
 left open ?


As Dmitry has already responded, there is absolutely no separate Jira
maintained for Ignite. Denis accidently sent his employer's Jira ticket
status to the dev list. In fact he is so used to send the most of his
emails to the dev list, that he sent this one to the dev list by accident
as well.


 Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits, that
 seems to be left open ?


The identity of the committers is never lost (at least to my knowledge). We
actually have the opposite problem of too many commits happening in
different branches because of our branching policy which requires a
separate branch for every ticket.


 Concerns have been raised about the homepage, that seems to be left open ?


I'm not sure what concerns were raised about the homepage (I actually like
the design ;-). Can you point me to the thread, if I missed it? To my
knowledge, there were some stale links that were noted, but those were
quickly fixed. We will be happy to address any open issues with the web
site.


 When it comes to voting time, those are the questions I will check if
 answered in an acceptable apache way, if so I am  +1,
 rgds
 jan I.


 On 23 July 2015 at 01:16, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:

  After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
  questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
  being
  properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.
 
  This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact,
  the
  community is making changes as we speak
  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process
 
  specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of
 taste
  and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another,
  although I
  surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.
 
  Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by
  the
  community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any
 new
  contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they
  do -
  the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
  figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@
 and
  user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?
 
  Regards,
Cos
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
   On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression
  of a
split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following
  the
Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
difficult to decipher.
   
In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch
'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx
  cases
that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me
  that
development is been driven by off-list meetings.
   
If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
  developers,
I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
   
Julian
   
[1]
 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
   
   
  
   The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
   mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would
 love
   for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
   based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
   hosted at the ASF.
  
   Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
   description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
   changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
   explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly
 taught
   about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
   actual discussions and 'ping-pong'

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:50AM, jan i wrote:
 Hi
 
 I am concerned, seen from my POW (and please excuse it is of course my
 personal pow), too many
 questions remain unanswered.
 
 I am concerned because I would have expected the community to have clear
 answers (independent of whether I agree or not) to
 e.g. the concerns from Daniel.
 
 It seems to me (and I am sorry, being busy, I do not research thing, I
 simply read this thread), that there are issues with the community.
 
 I recognize that the activity on the ML is diverse FINE !
 Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be
 left open ?
 Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits, that
 seems to be left open ?

I am not sure about this one: why there's a concern that people behind commits
aren't the same ppl as making the fixes? Am I reading this right?

 Concerns have been raised about the homepage, that seems to be left open ?

The other two are being/were answered.

 When it comes to voting time, those are the questions I will check if
 answered in an acceptable apache way, if so I am  +1,

And thank you for that: these are actionable. I wouldn't expect anything less! 

Cos

 rgds
 jan I.
 
 
 On 23 July 2015 at 01:16, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
 
  After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
  questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
  being
  properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.
 
  This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact,
  the
  community is making changes as we speak
  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process
 
  specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of taste
  and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another,
  although I
  surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.
 
  Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by
  the
  community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any new
  contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they
  do -
  the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
  figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@ and
  user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?
 
  Regards,
Cos
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
   On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression
  of a
split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following
  the
Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
difficult to decipher.
   
In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch
'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx
  cases
that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me
  that
development is been driven by off-list meetings.
   
If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
  developers,
I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
   
Julian
   
[1]
  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
   
   
  
   The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
   mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
   for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
   based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
   hosted at the ASF.
  
   Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
   description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
   changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
   explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
   about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
   actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.
  
   I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
   some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
   development process.
  
   With regards,
   Daniel.
  
  
   -
   To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
   For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
  
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 

-
To

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:



 On 2015-07-23 00:31, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

 Thanks Julian - that's something that this community would have it
 improve.
 Although I don't see if a particular way of using (or not using) JIRA is a
 graduation's requirement. If there's a way to trace a particular feature
 to an
 archived discussion - ie mailing list - there's no problem in my
 professional
 view ;)

 As Brane said above: perhaps not the still snapshot, but rather the
 trends of
 the improvements have to be considered when the future graduation is
 discussed.

 Do we have a disagreement about the graduation criteria? Yes. Does IPMC
 asks
 right questions: sure!

 Shall we agree that the community is ready to graduate and task the new
 PMC
 with a couple of the action items such as keep recruiting outside
 committers,
 thus growing the viability of the project, and improving the JIRA
 communication process? If we can agree on this last proposal then we just
 might have the consensus.

  If the podling has to be tasked with fixing procedures after graduation,
 the podling is not ready to graduate, in my view.
 The incubator is tasked with ensuring that podlings adhere to the
 guidelines for open source development we have in the ASF, and if we let
 podlings graduate before they have consistently proven that they do just
 that, it diminishes the value of the incubator.

 There should be no rush here. If the IPMC has reasonable concerns (as is
 mentioned by several IPMC members) and can list specific procedures and/or
 philosophies that need to change, I think it best that the podling works
 towards this and seeks to graduate at a later time when these issues are
 considered resolved in a manner that the IPMC agrees with. This is and
 should be a consensus issue, and as such, I think it would be best for the
 podling to take a step back, address the issues, and then come back to the
 IPMC when they believe they have incorporated the necessary changes.


Hi Daniel, I agree. However, while I believe that every project can improve
in many ways, I think that our processes are very open and community
friendly. So far we have had many new contributors submit patches that have
been accepted or in progress:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1059
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1055
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1017
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-428
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-788
etc...

Also, I believe I have addressed the concerns you have raised in my reply
to your other email. Happy to discuss further.



 For the reasons stated above, I am -1 on this as it stands.


 With regards,
 Daniel.


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.0-incubating

2015-07-22 Thread moon soo Lee

Hi,

Vote to release Apache Zeppelin 0.5.0-incubating passed with the following
results:
4 binding +1 votes, no 0 or -1 votes.

IPMC binding votes were provided by:
Konstantin Boudnik
Justin Mclean
Edward J. Yoon
Jan Iversen

Here's vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3CCALf24satNWiQ%3DK4jvKE%2BDtByMa1JR1d68iLG2hoXnETe_3QUfQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E

Thanks to all who helped make this release possible!

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:45 PM moon soo Lee m...@apache.org wrote:

Thanks all IPMC for kind assistance.
I'll send vote result email and proceed next steps.

Thanks,
moon

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:52 AM jan i j...@apache.org wrote:

On 23 July 2015 at 01:49, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:

Given that issues were addressed (or are work in progress) and the 72
hours
window has passed (eg anyone who wanted to chime in had a chance to do
it)
I'd
call the vote and send the official result email to this list. Then
follow
with the rest of required steps like moving artifacts, etc.

Agree the 72 hours is the key. But please it is custom when calling a vote
to set a deadline.

Congrats with the release.
rgds
jan i.

Thanks
Cos

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:31PM, moon soo Lee wrote:
Thanks everyone for valuable concern and comment to the first release
of
Apache Zeppelin (incubating).
Like Alexander mentioned, community will quickly address issues raised
here, over the next release.

I'd like to learn more how the vote goes. While this vote has four
+1, is
it okay to close this vote and post result or are there more things to
consider?

Best,
moon

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:13 AM Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org
wrote:

Thank you guys for resolving the raised issues so quickly!

Cos

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:25PM, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
Got it, thank you very much, Justin, for the explanation!

On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have
contacted
the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with
the
proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
(incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other
issues
raised here, over the next release.

Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you
more
comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?

Please let us know.

Thanks in advance.

--
Kind regards,
Alexander

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Justin Mclean
jus...@classsoftware.com
wrote:
Hi,

Regarding the issue raised by Edward - we were under impression
that
this particular contribution is covered by

https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/NOTICE#L53
(as we use the code from
https://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=1361 that
was not
merged to the selenium, keeping the attribution)

It depends on how that original code is licensed and if you have
permission to use the code from the author. I don't know the exact
particulars, and it may be fine, but it seem unclear to me. This
probably
doesn’t have to be sorted in the this release but would need to be
sorted
before graduation, but other IPMC member may hold different
opinions.

Thanks,
Justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
general-h...@incubator.apache.org

--
--
Kind regards,
Alexander.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
general-h...@incubator.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Valentin Kulichenko

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko 
 valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com wrote:

   Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,
  that
   seems to be left open ?
  
 
  The identity of the committers is never lost (at least to my knowledge).
 We
  actually have the opposite problem of too many commits happening in
  different branches because of our branching policy which requires a
  separate branch for every ticket.
 

 How are they preserved when the bug branch is deleted as per guidelines?


Branch is removed after it's merged to master. Merge process in Git implies
applying all commits made in branch one by one preserving the full history.
All these commits will be visible in master (including comments, authors,
timestamps, etc.).

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Jochen Theodorou


Am 23.07.2015 05:13, schrieb Ted Dunning:

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko 
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com wrote:


Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,

that

seems to be left open ?



The identity of the committers is never lost (at least to my knowledge). We
actually have the opposite problem of too many commits happening in
different branches because of our branching policy which requires a
separate branch for every ticket.



How are they preserved when the bug branch is deleted as per guidelines?


just to give the general idea and not claiming that the Ignite people do 
it like that.. normally what you do is the following:


1) create a bug-fix branch based on master
2) commit your changes to the bug-fix branch
3) test/verify by the community and CI
4) merge bug-fix branch to master
5) delete bug-fix branch

In this process there is no loss of commits, the information stays in 
the master branch. In git you normally keep only the branches people 
work on, or you use tags.


Step 4 can be done in multiple ways. Of course normally the first choice 
is the git based merge, but you can also work with a patch set (the 
author/date information is not lost by this) or cherry-pick (which is 
like duplicating the commit on another branch). branching off and 
merging again, can be seen in tools like for example gitk or with for 
example git log --graph. Examples can for example be seen on 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1838873/visualizing-branch-topology-in-git 
using different tools. Noteworthy here is that normal commits are 
handled similar to branches. In other words, git does not really know a 
concept like a branch as it was with svn/cvs. Instead it is an 
elementary part of the system, that every commit has a parent and 
possibly a child and from this results a commit graph. A branch is only 
a commit noted as head. Deleting a branch thus means only to delete that 
meta information. And unlike CVS/SVN git is based on a database. Even if 
you do git rm to delete a file, it is still in the database and not 
removed from history.


bye blackdrag

--
Jochen blackdrag Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko 
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com wrote:

  Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,
 that
  seems to be left open ?
 

 The identity of the committers is never lost (at least to my knowledge). We
 actually have the opposite problem of too many commits happening in
 different branches because of our branching policy which requires a
 separate branch for every ticket.


How are they preserved when the bug branch is deleted as per guidelines?

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.0-incubating

2015-07-22 Thread moon soo Lee

Thanks all IPMC for kind assistance.
I'll send vote result email and proceed next steps.

Thanks,
moon

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:52 AM jan i j...@apache.org wrote:

 On 23 July 2015 at 01:49, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:

  Given that issues were addressed (or are work in progress) and the 72
 hours
  window has passed (eg anyone who wanted to chime in had a chance to do
 it)
  I'd
  call the vote and send the official result email to this list. Then
 follow
  with the rest of required steps like moving artifacts, etc.
 
 Agree the 72 hours is the key. But please it is custom when calling a vote
 to set a deadline.

 Congrats with the release.
 rgds
 jan i.


 
  Thanks
Cos
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:31PM, moon soo Lee wrote:
   Thanks everyone for valuable concern and comment to the first release
 of
   Apache Zeppelin (incubating).
   Like Alexander mentioned, community will quickly address issues raised
   here, over the next release.
  
   I'd like to learn more how the vote goes. While this vote has four +1,
 is
   it okay to close this vote and post result or are there more things to
   consider?
  
   Best,
   moon
  
   On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:13 AM Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org
  wrote:
  
Thank you guys for resolving the raised issues so quickly!
   
Cos
   
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:25PM, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
 Got it, thank you very much, Justin, for the explanation!

 On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have contacted
 the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with the
 proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
 (incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
 So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other
  issues
 raised here, over the next release.

 Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you
 more
 comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?

 Please let us know.

 Thanks in advance.

 --
 Kind regards,
 Alexander

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Justin Mclean 
  jus...@classsoftware.com
wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Regarding the issue raised by Edward - we were under impression
  that
  this particular contribution is covered by
 
  https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/NOTICE#L53
  (as we use the code from
  https://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=1361 that
  was not
  merged to the selenium, keeping the attribution)
 
  It depends on how that original code is licensed and if you have
permission to use the code from the author. I don't know the exact
particulars, and it may be fine, but it seem unclear to me. This
  probably
doesn’t have to be sorted in the this release but would need to be
  sorted
before graduation, but other IPMC member may hold different opinions.
 
  Thanks,
  Justin
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail:
 general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 



 --
 --
 Kind regards,
 Alexander.


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

   
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
   
   
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko 
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com wrote:

 Sorry for some late responses. It so happens that most of the community
 members are on european time zones.


Thanks so much for jumping in!


  I recognize that the activity on the ML is diverse FINE !
  Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be
  left open ?
 

 As Dmitry has already responded, there is absolutely no separate Jira
 maintained for Ignite. Denis accidently sent his employer's Jira ticket
 status to the dev list. In fact he is so used to send the most of his
 emails to the dev list, that he sent this one to the dev list by accident
 as well.


Valentin,

As an interesting test of point of view, could you approach the project as
if a stranger?

Look at the mailing list.  Look at JIRA.  Try to understand what was
resolved from the evidence you see.  Look for evidence of how the design
for the solution was arrived at.

Take for instance IGNITE-1134.  This is a hang after some stimulating
event.  This sort of problem is often caused by subtle consistency issues
in distributed systems.  This JIRA was resolved 21 hours after it was filed
with no discussion or review as far as I can tell.  It was closed 20
seconds after resolution. How can an outsider be part of this process?

After take a look from that perspective, please tell us what you think
about whether design decisions are being made on the list. My view is that
they appear not to be, but you can probably say more from the inside of the
project.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.0-incubating

Thank you guys for resolving the raised issues so quickly!

Cos

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:25PM, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
 Got it, thank you very much, Justin, for the explanation!
 
 On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have contacted
 the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with the
 proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
 (incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
 So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other issues
 raised here, over the next release.
 
 Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you more
 comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?
 
 Please let us know.
 
 Thanks in advance.
 
 --
 Kind regards,
 Alexander
 
 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com 
 wrote:
  Hi,
 
  Regarding the issue raised by Edward - we were under impression that
  this particular contribution is covered by
  https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/NOTICE#L53
  (as we use the code from
  https://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=1361 that was not
  merged to the selenium, keeping the attribution)
 
  It depends on how that original code is licensed and if you have permission 
  to use the code from the author. I don't know the exact particulars, and it 
  may be fine, but it seem unclear to me. This probably doesn’t have to be 
  sorted in the this release but would need to be sorted before graduation, 
  but other IPMC member may hold different opinions.
 
  Thanks,
  Justin
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 --
 Kind regards,
 Alexander.
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Thanks Julian - that's something that this community would have it improve.
Although I don't see if a particular way of using (or not using) JIRA is a
graduation's requirement. If there's a way to trace a particular feature to an
archived discussion - ie mailing list - there's no problem in my professional
view ;)

As Brane said above: perhaps not the still snapshot, but rather the trends of
the improvements have to be considered when the future graduation is
discussed. 

Do we have a disagreement about the graduation criteria? Yes. Does IPMC asks
right questions: sure!

Shall we agree that the community is ready to graduate and task the new PMC
with a couple of the action items such as keep recruiting outside committers,
thus growing the viability of the project, and improving the JIRA
communication process? If we can agree on this last proposal then we just
might have the consensus.

Is it a reasonable course of action?
  Cos

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:23PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
 I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a
 split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the
 Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult
 to decipher.
 
 In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch
 'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
 typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases
 that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that
 development is been driven by off-list meetings.
 
 If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers, I
 think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
 excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
 
 Julian
 
 [1] 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
 [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
  
 
 
 On Jul 22, 2015, at 12:14 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:
 
  On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
  Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
  this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that
  the 37% are actually active, that is).
  
  Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
  the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.
  
  I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
  outside, and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
  community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
  wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
  graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
  rather than the other way around.
  
  I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an open and diverse
  community should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
  months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
  incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
  using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
  effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.
  
  -- Brane
  
  
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
  
 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Twill-0.6.0-incubating

2015-07-22 Thread Henry Saputra

Justin,

That is the text file used to test local file. Does it need to be
added with Apache header?

- Henry

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@me.com wrote:
 Hi,

 +1 binding

 I checked:
 - release has incubating in name
 - signatures and hashes good
 - DISCLAIMER exists
 - LICENSE and NOTICE all good
 - no binary files in release (makes checking easy)
 - all source files have headers
 - can compile from source

 Not an issue but any reason for this file?
 /twill-yarn/src/test/resources/header.txt

 Thanks,
 Justin

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:

 Shall we agree that the community is ready to graduate and task the new PMC
 with a couple of the action items such as keep recruiting outside
 committers,
 thus growing the viability of the project, and improving the JIRA
 communication process? If we can agree on this last proposal then we just
 might have the consensus.

 Is it a reasonable course of action?


I think that there is a reasonable question about whether the community is
ready to graduate.  That question hinges on whether the development is
really being done in the open.

I think that there is good evidence of good will in the mailing list
history.  That probably means that any defect in behavior is inadvertent.

Until the first question about off-list development is resolved, I would
like to change my vote to -1.  This is purely for the purpose of spurring
the resolution of the development process question.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Twill-0.6.0-incubating

2015-07-22 Thread Justin Mclean

Hi,

 That is the text file used to test local file. Does it need to be
 added with Apache header?

Given the content is trivial there's probably no need, but it does stick out as 
it’s the only file to be missing a header.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.7.0-incubating [rc1]

2015-07-22 Thread Aled Sage


Hi Justin, Hadrian,

Yes, that's the justification for omitting the copyright header in those 
files. From the incubator-general discussion for release 
0.7.0-M2-incubating [1]:


   This one has been previously discussed on our lists; our conclusion
   with our mentors was that the archetype is an empty, skeleton, project
   that has no creative content and therefore does not require an Apache
   license header. You can see the discussion here:
   
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-brooklyn-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAKprHVY8vdcUPHECOCCD3dH0xQWYqi90WLo3K-Oy4qFZ0scf7A%40mail.gmail.com%3E

Thanks for reviewing!

Aled

[1] 
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201412.mbox/%3CCABQFKi0Qj2dvr7UCQAiYCro4GfBrP8rTQqO=t2=iereyqdj...@mail.gmail.com%3E



On 22/07/2015 07:50, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:

Hi Justin,

Being part of the maven archetype, these are the templates to 
quickstart a user with a project using brooklyn. Such projects would 
not be licensed to the ASF, but we could also say that it's then their 
business to update the copyright header. I am kinda neutral on this 
one, but I guess this would be the explanation for the missing headers.


Cheers,
Hadrian


On 07/22/2015 10:08 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:

Hi,

+1 binding

I checked the source release.
- release contains incubating
- signatures and hashed good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE good (a few minor issues)
- no unexpected binary files
- some source files are missing headers (see 
/usage/archetypes/quickstart/src/brooklyn-sample/src/test/java/com/acme/sample/brooklyn/sample/app/*.java)

- can compile from source

Minor issues:
- LICENCE is missing standard appendix
- probably no need for the full text of MIT and BSD as the short 
version is preferred and already used

- LICENSE is missing:
riak (see 
./software/nosql/src/main/resources/brooklyn/entity/nosql/riak/vm.args + 
others)
normalize.css (see 
./sandbox/mobile-app/src/main/webapp/assets/mobile/libs/mcasimir-mobile-angular-ui-be39011/dist/css/mobile-angular-ui-base.css)
mobileangular-ui (see 
./sandbox/mobile-app/src/main/webapp/assets/mobile/libs/mcasimir-mobile-angular-ui-be39011/dist/js/mobile-angular-ui.js)

r.js (see ./usage/jsgui/src/build/requirejs-maven-plugin/r.js)
angular (see 
./sandbox/mobile-app/src/main/webapp/assets/mobile/libs/angular-1.2.19)


I didn’t have time to check the connivence binaries.

Thanks,
Justin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.0-incubating

Given that issues were addressed (or are work in progress) and the 72 hours
window has passed (eg anyone who wanted to chime in had a chance to do it) I'd
call the vote and send the official result email to this list. Then follow
with the rest of required steps like moving artifacts, etc.

Thanks
  Cos

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:31PM, moon soo Lee wrote:
 Thanks everyone for valuable concern and comment to the first release of
 Apache Zeppelin (incubating).
 Like Alexander mentioned, community will quickly address issues raised
 here, over the next release.
 
 I'd like to learn more how the vote goes. While this vote has four +1, is
 it okay to close this vote and post result or are there more things to
 consider?
 
 Best,
 moon
 
 On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:13 AM Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
 
  Thank you guys for resolving the raised issues so quickly!
 
  Cos
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:25PM, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
   Got it, thank you very much, Justin, for the explanation!
  
   On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have contacted
   the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with the
   proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
   (incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
   So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other issues
   raised here, over the next release.
  
   Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you more
   comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?
  
   Please let us know.
  
   Thanks in advance.
  
   --
   Kind regards,
   Alexander
  
   On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com
  wrote:
Hi,
   
Regarding the issue raised by Edward - we were under impression that
this particular contribution is covered by
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/NOTICE#L53
(as we use the code from
https://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=1361 that was not
merged to the selenium, keeping the attribution)
   
It depends on how that original code is licensed and if you have
  permission to use the code from the author. I don't know the exact
  particulars, and it may be fine, but it seem unclear to me. This probably
  doesn’t have to be sorted in the this release but would need to be sorted
  before graduation, but other IPMC member may hold different opinions.
   
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
   
  
  
  
   --
   --
   Kind regards,
   Alexander.
  
   -
   To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
   For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
  
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Actually, that document just makes me more dubious.

The problems I see are:

1) the identity of the original person doing the work is obscured by the
squash commits

2) the deletion of the bug branch after integration involves deletion of
important information from git (and I thought that rewriting of history is
outlawed on the apache git repo in any case)

3) the mention of deleting branches makes me worry that development is
going on using a separate repos that aren't visible to the apache repo

I still see the problem of understanding what happened.  I just reviewed a
dozen or so of the most recent JIRA's and found only the slightest
discussion in the comments on any of them (1 had a round or two, another
had a little less and all the rest had none at all).

Here[1,2,3] are searches for discussions on a sample JIRA.

I find it hard to believe that these bugs are being resolved clairvoyantly
and have to conclude that there is considerable discussion of these issues
going on somewhere other than JIRA or the mailing list.

[1]
https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1095

[2]
https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1095#q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1031

[3]
https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1095#q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1100

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:

 After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
 questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
 being
 properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.

 This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact,
 the
 community is making changes as we speak
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process

 specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of taste
 and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another,
 although I
 surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.

 Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by
 the
 community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any new
 contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they
 do -
 the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
 figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@ and
 user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?

 Regards,
   Cos

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
  On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
   I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression
 of a
   split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following
 the
   Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
   difficult to decipher.
  
   In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch
   'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
   typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx
 cases
   that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me
 that
   development is been driven by off-list meetings.
  
   If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
 developers,
   I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
   excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
  
   Julian
  
   [1]
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
   [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
  
  
 
  The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
  mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
  for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
  based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
  hosted at the ASF.
 
  Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
  description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
  changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
  explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
  about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
  actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.
 
  I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
  some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
  development process.
 
  With regards,
  Daniel.
 
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.0-incubating

On 23 July 2015 at 01:49, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:

 Given that issues were addressed (or are work in progress) and the 72 hours
 window has passed (eg anyone who wanted to chime in had a chance to do it)
 I'd
 call the vote and send the official result email to this list. Then follow
 with the rest of required steps like moving artifacts, etc.

Agree the 72 hours is the key. But please it is custom when calling a vote
to set a deadline.

Congrats with the release.
rgds
jan i.



 Thanks
   Cos

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:31PM, moon soo Lee wrote:
  Thanks everyone for valuable concern and comment to the first release of
  Apache Zeppelin (incubating).
  Like Alexander mentioned, community will quickly address issues raised
  here, over the next release.
 
  I'd like to learn more how the vote goes. While this vote has four +1, is
  it okay to close this vote and post result or are there more things to
  consider?
 
  Best,
  moon
 
  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:13 AM Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org
 wrote:
 
   Thank you guys for resolving the raised issues so quickly!
  
   Cos
  
   On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:25PM, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
Got it, thank you very much, Justin, for the explanation!
   
On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have contacted
the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with the
proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
(incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other
 issues
raised here, over the next release.
   
Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you more
comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?
   
Please let us know.
   
Thanks in advance.
   
--
Kind regards,
Alexander
   
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Justin Mclean 
 jus...@classsoftware.com
   wrote:
 Hi,

 Regarding the issue raised by Edward - we were under impression
 that
 this particular contribution is covered by

 https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/NOTICE#L53
 (as we use the code from
 https://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=1361 that
 was not
 merged to the selenium, keeping the attribution)

 It depends on how that original code is licensed and if you have
   permission to use the code from the author. I don't know the exact
   particulars, and it may be fine, but it seem unclear to me. This
 probably
   doesn’t have to be sorted in the this release but would need to be
 sorted
   before graduation, but other IPMC member may hold different opinions.

 Thanks,
 Justin

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

   
   
   
--
--
Kind regards,
Alexander.
   
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
   
  
   -
   To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
   For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
  
  

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Twill-0.6.0-incubating

+1 (binding)

rgds
jan i.

ps. when you write to IPMC directly please include general@ we are lazy and
do reply-all.

On 23 July 2015 at 01:57, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks! I definitely owe you glass of wine when we met in person ;)

But, unfortunately we need the +1 in the general@ list where the
official VOTE is running.
Thanks again for your help =)

Thanks,

Henry

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:40 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
If you connect a glass of wine with your words, you will see a far higher
number.

But considering this is the most active marketing I have seen in a while
for
a release:

+1 (binding).

have fun
jan i.

On 23 July 2015 at 01:18, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Fellow IPMCs,

The VOTE for next release of Apache Twill incubating is on the way.
Would love to get some VOTEs on the proposed release artifacts.

Thank you,

Henry

-- Forwarded message --
From: Terence Yim cht...@apache.org
Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:36 AM
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Twill-0.6.0-incubating
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: d...@twill.incubator.apache.org d...@twill.incubator.apache.org

Hi all,

This is to call for a vote on releasing Apache Twill 0.6.0-incubating.
This is the seventh release for Twill.

Apache Twill is an abstraction over Apache Hadoop YARN that reduces
the complexity of developing distributed applications.

Vote on twill-dev:
http://s.apache.org/ABI

Result on vote on twill-dev:
http://s.apache.org/Hk4

The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/twill/0.6.0-incubating-rc2/src

The tag to be voted upon is v0.6.0-incubating:

https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-twill.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/v0.6.0-incubating

The release hash is 518cc1a24c1ae29e46b58debe0f1a177d1589321:

https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-twill.git;a=commit;h=518cc1a24c1ae29e46b58debe0f1a177d1589321

The Nexus Staging URL:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetwill-1017

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/chtyim.asc

KEYS file available:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/twill/KEYS

For information about the contents of this release, see:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/twill/0.6.0-incubating-rc1/CHANGES.txt

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Twill 0.6.0-incubating

The vote will be open for 72 hours.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Twill 0.6.0-incubating
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

Thanks,
The Apache Twill Team

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Daniel Gruno




On 2015-07-23 00:31, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

Thanks Julian - that's something that this community would have it improve.
Although I don't see if a particular way of using (or not using) JIRA is a
graduation's requirement. If there's a way to trace a particular feature to an
archived discussion - ie mailing list - there's no problem in my professional
view ;)

As Brane said above: perhaps not the still snapshot, but rather the trends of
the improvements have to be considered when the future graduation is
discussed.

Do we have a disagreement about the graduation criteria? Yes. Does IPMC asks
right questions: sure!

Shall we agree that the community is ready to graduate and task the new PMC
with a couple of the action items such as keep recruiting outside committers,
thus growing the viability of the project, and improving the JIRA
communication process? If we can agree on this last proposal then we just
might have the consensus.

If the podling has to be tasked with fixing procedures after graduation, 
the podling is not ready to graduate, in my view.
The incubator is tasked with ensuring that podlings adhere to the 
guidelines for open source development we have in the ASF, and if we let 
podlings graduate before they have consistently proven that they do just 
that, it diminishes the value of the incubator.


There should be no rush here. If the IPMC has reasonable concerns (as is 
mentioned by several IPMC members) and can list specific procedures 
and/or philosophies that need to change, I think it best that the 
podling works towards this and seeks to graduate at a later time when 
these issues are considered resolved in a manner that the IPMC agrees 
with. This is and should be a consensus issue, and as such, I think it 
would be best for the podling to take a step back, address the issues, 
and then come back to the IPMC when they believe they have incorporated 
the necessary changes.


For the reasons stated above, I am -1 on this as it stands.

With regards,
Daniel.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not being
properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.

This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact, the
community is making changes as we speak
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process

specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of taste
and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another, although I
surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.

Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by the
community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any new
contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they do -
the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@ and
user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?

Regards,
  Cos

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
 On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
  I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a
  split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the
  Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
  difficult to decipher.
  
  In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch
  'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
  typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases
  that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that
  development is been driven by off-list meetings.
  
  If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers,
  I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
  excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
  
  Julian
  
  [1] 
  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
  [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
   
  
 
 The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
 mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
 for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
 based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
 hosted at the ASF.
 
 Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
 description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
 changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
 explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
 about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
 actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.
 
 I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
 some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
 development process.
 
 With regards,
 Daniel.
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:

On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of
a split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the
Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult
to decipher.

In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch
'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases
that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that
development is been driven by off-list meetings.

If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
developers, I think they need to make their commits more transparent to
match the excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.

Julian

[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master

The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
hosted at the ASF.

Let me clarify this.

Denis is a GridGain employee and, apart from Ignite, he also works on
GridGain product fixing various issues. At the end of the day he sent an
email notifying other GridGain team members about the work he has done and
by accident sent it to the dev list. This has nothing to do with the Ignite
project and we do not maintain any separate Jiras for the Ignite project.

As far as Ignite project is concerned, all Ignite work is being done in the
open and all the issues/questions related to the Ignite are discussed on
the dev list.

Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.

There are certainly tickets like that, but most of them were early in the
incubation process. As we started learning the Apache way, the Jira
communication has significantly improved and most tickets have relatively
good commentary and description. If you find anything to the contrary, it
is definitely not the norm.

For example, I have looked through the ticket flow for the past several
days and most of them have comments. Here are some examples:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-79
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1100
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1137
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1097
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1131
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1106

etc.

Also, there are some tickets that are self explanatory and do not require
explanation (you can grasp the meaning from the title). Case in hand is
this ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1095 . Granted
some commentary would not hurt and I will advise for that on the dev list,
but it is clear that the ticket has been reviewed without comments and
closed.

Also, keep in mind that every ticket is worked on in a separate branch, and
every branch is named consistently after the ticket. Some reviews happen in
the branch, and that is why not every ticket has a patch attached to it.
This is documented on the website and Wiki:

https://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/contribute.html#contribute
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute

Additionally, all the discussions about any issue occurring throughout
working on the ticket usually take place on the dev list:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Unstructured-object-format-td1685.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-950-new-marshaller-mode-preliminary-review-td1732.html

etc...

I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
development process.

With regards,
Daniel.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zeppelin (incubating) 0.5.0-incubating

2015-07-22 Thread moon soo Lee

Thanks everyone for valuable concern and comment to the first release of
Apache Zeppelin (incubating).
Like Alexander mentioned, community will quickly address issues raised
here, over the next release.

I'd like to learn more how the vote goes. While this vote has four +1, is
it okay to close this vote and post result or are there more things to
consider?

Best,
moon

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:13 AM Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:

 Thank you guys for resolving the raised issues so quickly!

 Cos

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:25PM, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
  Got it, thank you very much, Justin, for the explanation!
 
  On behalf of the Apache Zeppelin (incubating) PPMC I have contacted
  the original author and he agreed to contribute this code, with the
  proper Apache 2.0 licence header, directly to the Apache Zeppelin
  (incubating) codebase as a separate patch.
  So it is going to be resolved completely, together with 2 other issues
  raised here, over the next release.
 
  Edward J. Yoon, does this explanation and actions taken make you more
  comfortable with changing your opinion\vote?
 
  Please let us know.
 
  Thanks in advance.
 
  --
  Kind regards,
  Alexander
 
  On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com
 wrote:
   Hi,
  
   Regarding the issue raised by Edward - we were under impression that
   this particular contribution is covered by
   https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/NOTICE#L53
   (as we use the code from
   https://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=1361 that was not
   merged to the selenium, keeping the attribution)
  
   It depends on how that original code is licensed and if you have
 permission to use the code from the author. I don't know the exact
 particulars, and it may be fine, but it seem unclear to me. This probably
 doesn’t have to be sorted in the this release but would need to be sorted
 before graduation, but other IPMC member may hold different opinions.
  
   Thanks,
   Justin
   -
   To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
   For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
  
 
 
 
  --
  --
  Kind regards,
  Alexander.
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Hi

I am concerned, seen from my POW (and please excuse it is of course my
personal pow), too many
questions remain unanswered.

I am concerned because I would have expected the community to have clear
answers (independent of whether I agree or not) to
e.g. the concerns from Daniel.

It seems to me (and I am sorry, being busy, I do not research thing, I
simply read this thread), that there are issues with the community.

I recognize that the activity on the ML is diverse FINE !
Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be
left open ?
Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits, that
seems to be left open ?
Concerns have been raised about the homepage, that seems to be left open ?

When it comes to voting time, those are the questions I will check if
answered in an acceptable apache way, if so I am  +1,
rgds
jan I.


On 23 July 2015 at 01:16, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:

 After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
 questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
 being
 properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.

 This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact,
 the
 community is making changes as we speak
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process

 specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of taste
 and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another,
 although I
 surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.

 Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by
 the
 community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any new
 contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they
 do -
 the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
 figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@ and
 user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?

 Regards,
   Cos

 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
  On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
   I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression
 of a
   split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following
 the
   Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
   difficult to decipher.
  
   In the commit log, messages such as Merge remote-tracking branch
   'origin/master’” and # master minor”, GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
   typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx
 cases
   that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me
 that
   development is been driven by off-list meetings.
  
   If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
 developers,
   I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
   excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
  
   Julian
  
   [1]
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
   [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
  
  
 
  The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
  mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
  for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
  based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
  hosted at the ASF.
 
  Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
  description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
  changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
  explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
  about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
  actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.
 
  I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
  some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
  development process.
 
  With regards,
  Daniel.
 
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator