[ANNOUNCE] Apache S2Graph 0.2.0-incubating release

[DO YUNG YOON]

The Apache S2Graph team is pleased to announce the release of Apache
S2Graph 0.2.0-incubating.

Apache S2Graph(incubating) is a graph database designed to handle
transactional graph processing at scale. Its REST API allows you to store,
manage and query relational information using edge and vertex
representations in a fully asynchronous and non-blocking manner.

The 0.2.0-incubating release has some great enhancements and new features.
Some highlights
are:

- Native integration with the Apache TinkerPop(OLTP).
- Support numeric range, and full-text search via Apache Lucene.
- Numerous Improvements
- Many bug fixes

The release is available here:
http://s2graph.incubator.apache.org/download.html

Release notes can be found here:
http://s2graph.incubator.apache.org/releases/s2graph-release-0.2.0-incubating.html

More details on Apache S2Graph can be found at:
http://s2graph.incubator.apache.org/

We would like to thank all contributors who made the release possible, and
encourage anyone interested in using or contributing to the project to join
the dev mailing list(mailto:dev-subscr...@s2graph.incubator.apache.org
)

Regards,
Apache S2Graph (incubating) Community


DISCLAIMER

Apache S2Graph is an effort undergoing incubation at the Apache Software
Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator PMC.

Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further
review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision
making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other
successful ASF projects.

While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the
completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the
project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Meghna Baijal]

Hi all

This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
candidate 3.

Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.

Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
 



Result thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
 



The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 



The release tag can be found here: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 



The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be found 
here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd
 



Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549


KEY files are available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 



For information about the contents of this release, see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate
 



The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

[ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Thanks.

Re: Podlings & Apache Project Maturity Model (was RE: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache RocketMQ from podling to TLP)

[Dave Fisher]

Hi -

I think that the model is a good measure and the development of it was an 
excellent example of the group dynamic in using a wiki. It is a list of best 
practices. If a podling goes through the process then we ought to treat it as a 
fair effort.

I think that it would be worth applying a similar wiki based discussion to 
review the state of Podling intake and graduation check lists. I know your 
working on that and I would like to help when we bring Daffodil in.

You bring up security reporting for Hadoop. A discussion of security 
requirements with the security team should be done, but not here because the 
examples I have are private. The problem is that (P)PMC and PMC need to monitor 
security issues with releases but under the current plan they often have only a 
few PMC members paying attention. This can lead to trouble with PMC oversight 
issues.

The ASF gives projects substantial freedom, but in return there are norms 
around (in no particular order):
- Foundation links.
- Branding
- Fundraising
- Legal
- Security
- Infra
- Community

This is a lot to absorb and learn.

Regards,
Dave


> On Aug 25, 2017, at 12:11 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> 
> (changing subjects to avoid confusion in RocketMQ's discussion)
> 
> I've been pretty explicit about my disdain in the past over the use of the
> Apache Project Maturity Model.  The model describes an ideal world that all
> projects should strive for, but I would be surprised if many projects
> passed it.
> 
> Its unfair for us to put some stake in the ground expecting podlings to
> match up 100% on the questions.  Many of the questions are subjective - is
> the code easy to discover? respond to bug reports in a timely manner?
> 
> My take is that if a podling can answer 1 question per section correctly,
> and there's some validity to the answer (e.g. the IN section requires a
> polygraph test) then they're on their way.  For instance, figuring out how
> to report a security issue around Apache Hadoop leads me to vendor websites
> first, the first apache.org match is on the second page.  This creates
> violations in the CO, QU, and IN categories.
> 
> John
> 
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:30 PM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 1:06 PM, John D. Ament 
>> wrote:
>>> ...please understand that the Apache Maturity Model is something that
>>> helps the com dev team evaluate TLPs against.  Its relevance to a
>>> graduating podling is extremely small...
>> 
>> FWIW, I disagree...I think the maturity model is a great tool to help
>> discover areas that podlings might have neglected in their work
>> towards graduation.
>> 
>> It's not THE single tool to evaluate TLP readiness, but I wouldn't
>> qualify its relevance as "extremely small".
>> 
>> (John - maybe we agree on the core, but I just reread the model and love
>> it ;-)
>> 
>> -Bertrand
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Podlings & Apache Project Maturity Model (was RE: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache RocketMQ from podling to TLP)

[John D. Ament]

(changing subjects to avoid confusion in RocketMQ's discussion)

I've been pretty explicit about my disdain in the past over the use of the
Apache Project Maturity Model.  The model describes an ideal world that all
projects should strive for, but I would be surprised if many projects
passed it.

Its unfair for us to put some stake in the ground expecting podlings to
match up 100% on the questions.  Many of the questions are subjective - is
the code easy to discover? respond to bug reports in a timely manner?

My take is that if a podling can answer 1 question per section correctly,
and there's some validity to the answer (e.g. the IN section requires a
polygraph test) then they're on their way.  For instance, figuring out how
to report a security issue around Apache Hadoop leads me to vendor websites
first, the first apache.org match is on the second page.  This creates
violations in the CO, QU, and IN categories.

John

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:30 PM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 1:06 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> > ...please understand that the Apache Maturity Model is something that
> > helps the com dev team evaluate TLPs against.  Its relevance to a
> > graduating podling is extremely small...
>
> FWIW, I disagree...I think the maturity model is a great tool to help
> discover areas that podlings might have neglected in their work
> towards graduation.
>
> It's not THE single tool to evaluate TLP readiness, but I wouldn't
> qualify its relevance as "extremely small".
>
> (John - maybe we agree on the core, but I just reread the model and love
> it ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.4.0-incubating based on Livy 0.4.0 RC2

[Luciano Resende]

+1 (binding)

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:33 AM Jerry Shao  wrote:

> Hello Incubator PMC’ers,
>
> The Apache Livy community has decided to release Apache Livy
> 0.4.0-incubating based on 0.4.0-incubating Release Candidate 2. We now
> kindly request the Incubator PMC members to review and vote on this
> incubator
> release.
>
> Livy is web service that exposes a REST interface for managing long running
> Apache Spark contexts in your cluster. With Livy, new applications can be
> built on top of Apache Spark that require fine grained interaction with
> many Spark contexts.
>
> Artifacts are available at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/livy/, public keys are
> available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/livy/KEYS.
>
> livy-0.4.0-incubating-src.zip <
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/livy/0.4.0-incubating/livy-0.4.0-incubating-src-RC2.zip
> > is a source release. Along with it, for convenience, please find the
> binary release as livy-0.4.0-incubating-bin-RC2.zip <
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/livy/0.4.0-incubating/livy-0.4.0-incubating-bin-RC2.zip
> >.
>
>
> Git tag:
> *
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-livy/releases/tag/v0.4.0-incubating-rc2
> <
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-livy/releases/tag/v0.4.0-incubating-rc2
> >*
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until necessary number of
> votes are reached.
>
> Members please be sure to indicate "(Binding)" with your vote which will
> help in tallying the vote(s).
>
> * Here is my +1 (non-binding) *
>
> Cheers,
> Jerry
>
-- 
Sent from my Mobile device