Re: [grammar] pure java syntax analyzer (this is not a compiler of compiler)

is not sourceForge, and we promote Community above Code : the project must remain alive even if you quit it. Thanks ! -- -- cordialement, regards, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com directory.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail

Re: Change of Chair

chairman those last years (Noel, Jukka and you), and I'm pretty sure the new chairman will be as good as they were ! Congrats to all of you, guys ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail

Re: Finding a Champion

that, tell us why your project is awesome and why we'd want to be involved. If you don't find a more suitable champion, I'd be please to offer my support. There is defintively a need for some XACML related project at the ASF. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com

Re: Finding a Champion

Emmanuel and Colm help us as Mentors. I'll be pleased to be a mentor, and having Paul as a Champion seems the perfect fit ! Waiting for the proposal now :-) -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com

Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator

that any podling have 3 mentors is just to mitigate the risk that one of them is not fullfiling his duty. Now, if we are to discuss the way incubator should be managed, then the best is to start another thread. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com

Re: [VOTE] Jukka Zitting for IPMC Chair (was Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[X] +1 Recommend Jukka Zitting for the IPMC chair position. (binding) Go Jukka !!! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Incubator site modifcations question

site-publish and the modifed file, is there something else I have to update ? Thanks ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional

Re: Incubator site modifcations question

somewhere else than in incubator/public/trunk -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h

Re: svn commit: r1244915 - /incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/.htaccess

for empire-db Modified: incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/.htaccess That won't last - you need to update the source file in site-author and regenerate. PING - the last site rebuild overwrote your change. Ok, many thanks ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com

Re: Binary dependencies in source releases (Was: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0)

? -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Missing reports

, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CloudStack for Apache Incubator

+1: accept CloudStack into Incubator (binding) -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating

. [the other poms do chain back to the Apache pom] Adding : parent groupIdorg.apache/groupId artifactIdapache/artifactId version10/version relativePath / /parent should do the trick (Check that the current version is not 10) Thanks ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating

in our own NL files what the 3rd party product requires us to include. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating

, loud and clear... There are separate rules for what 3rd party software ASF projects are allowed to depend on. Yep. Thanks ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt

-RC1-incubating/ If this is the second attempt, why is it called RC1 ? Surely it should be called RC2 ? Depends. As the first vote has been canceled, there was nothing like an official RC1. As noted in the subject, this is the 2nd attempt for RC1. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt

use : we keep trying to cut a release, with the same number, until we get it correct. At least, that's my opinion, which may not be shared. In any case, it should not be a blocker... Thanks ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt

, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt

too. Is this not the case with Syncope? Hmmm... Good question. I never voted against any web site on the various projects I worked or mentored. Where does it come from ? -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt

, could you name them ? Thanks ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt

is the license holders are not interested if we are having it as transitive lib or not. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands

Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 3rd attempt

[X] +1 approve (binding) -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.1-incubating (Candidate 3)

is the only way to go. At least this is my interpretation on the various discussions we have had in the ast two months while tryibg to cut a release on Syncope (incubator) and SSHD (a MINA subproject). Hope it helps... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com

Re: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.1-incubating (Candidate 3)

for the clarification, and the corrections you have made on my mail. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail

Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP

incubation, to make sure the peeps being STV code *knows* about the Apache Way... Or is this simple non-sense ? My +1 to the TLP without going through incubation... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com

Re: AWF status

, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Retire AWF from incubation

Do not retire the project, because ... [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/retirement.html WBR Roger -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr

Re: Vote or embedded in discussion? (was Re: [VOTE] Retire AWF from incubation)

to get a chance to catch in, but sadly, he now have no more time... I don't think the projects members will be surprised if we shutdown the project. I do agree, though, that we should have followed the procedure. Hope it clarifies the current decision ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel

Re: Fwd: [ANN] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC3-incubating released

...@incubator.apache.org -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Fwd: [ANN] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC3-incubating released

. Makes sense then. My perception is that the Syncope guys are trying to cut a 1.0.0, instead of going through many 0.x.0 before, therefore they are iterating on RC atm. It's pretty much semantic, IMHO. Do incubator peeps think it's a wrong approach ? -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny

Re: Fwd: [ANN] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC3-incubating released

2012 08:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ilgro...@apache.org wrote: On 27/07/2012 08:13, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: Le 7/27/12 1:02 AM, Joe Schaefer a écrit : I believe Bill is complaining not about the venue, but the choice of referring to this package as a release candidate instead of simply dropping

Re: Shipping binary file in CloudStack release

+1 votes' rule is universal. However, having -1 would be a sign that something goes wrong. Either on the community side, or on the voter side ;) Better try to see why a -1 (or many) have been casted before going for the release in such a case. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Syncope podling from Apache Incubator

* Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@apache.org * Fabio Martelli fmarte...@apache.org * Francesco Chicchiriccò ilgro...@apache.org * Jan Bernhardt jbernha...@apache.org * Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org * Massimiliano Perrone ma...@apache.org * Marco Di

Re: [VOTE] Accept Apache Open Climate Workbench into the Incubator

) Sponsoring Entity * Apache Incubator - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny

Re: Depending on incubating project

a first release inside Apache would help. Branching may be a problem as the code base will evolve in both projects, making it difficult to merge later. (IMHO) -- -- cordialement, regards, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com directory.apache.org

[IP CLEARANCE] Apache Fortress, a a standards based and Open Source Identity Access Management Java SDK for LDAP v3 compliant systems

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

Re: Need an additional Mentor for the OpenAz Project

Le 15/12/14 19:22, Hal Lockhart a écrit : The OpenAz Project currently has two mentors, but we need at least one more. Is there anyone who would be willing to join us? If we can be more than just 3 mentors, that would be extremelly cool !

Re: [VOTE] [PROPOSAL] Accept OpenAz (Access Control Tools) into the Apache Incubator

+1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

Le 22/03/15 11:04, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : Am 22.03.2015 00:09, schrieb Marvin Humphrey: [...] Because release candidate and RC are specialized terms with precise meaning at Apache and because we make a strong legal distinction between released and unreleased code, this is extremely

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

Le 22/03/15 00:09, Marvin Humphrey a écrit : On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan dsetrak...@apache.org wrote: We wanted to have community to play with the RC3 release for a bit until we release the final 1.0 release in a week or two. Because release candidate and RC are

Re: [VOTE] Accept Groovy into the Apache Incubator

[X] +1 accept Groovy in the Incubator (Binding) Emmanuel Lécharny - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Vote ? was [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

Hi guys, we can discuss for 3 more months, but at some point, isn't it time to start a vote ? We already have demonstrated our ability to raises various points on various subjects, time to demonstrate The ASF in action ! - To

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

Le 11/03/15 21:20, Martijn Dashorst a écrit : Great initiative! Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF? I think we have

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

Le 13/03/15 12:13, Jim Jagielski a écrit : community. Forgive me presuming to say this but this seems a contradiction with The Apache Way as written about. Also it is very CVCS/Subversion focussed. In a DVCS world, committers are just the gatekeepers of the central mainline, the judges/jury

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

Le 12/03/15 18:59, Marvin Humphrey a écrit : On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following proposal: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal I've read through the proposal (rev 17). It looks

[Groovy] Next steps...

Hi guys, ok, the vote result is out, groovy has been accepted. I suppose the next steps are : - vote the 5 proposed persons as committers, once they have submitted their ICLA (it's already done for a few of them) - create groovy ML (dev, commits, users, private, ...) - create the git repo - push

Re: [Groovy] Next steps...

Technically, I just added two moderators. We can add some more, I guess. One more thing : in order to add initial committers, the pdofling must be listed in https://id.apache.org/acreq/members/?. How do we add it ? - To

Re: [Groovy] Next steps...

Le 25/03/15 19:42, Jake Farrell a écrit : podlings do not appear in the acreq script until they have been added to podlings.xml, even if they file their ICLA with initial committer as part of groovy. It has been added in podlings.xml. I'm currently fighting to get the groovy page to appears

Re: [Groovy] Next steps...

Le 25/03/15 20:00, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit : On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: ...Another question : who is in charge of all those tasks ?.. If you could create tickets like the https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8968 example that

Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...

I think we are going a bit too far here. Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back in 2003). AL 2.0 says : Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,

Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...

Le 26/03/15 14:43, Guillaume Laforge a écrit : So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead / representative) can fill in the form, and say on behalf of the Groovy community, I grant the rights to the ASF? Jim said Just do it !... Let's discuss about the legal aspect there, but

Re: [Groovy] Next steps...

Le 26/03/15 01:01, Konstantin Boudnik a écrit : I have just helped bootstrapping two podlings in the last a couple of months, so I will add JIRAs to do the what needs to be done from the INFRA side of the things. Here is the Infra JIRA : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9338 As

Re: [Groovy] Next steps...

Le 25/03/15 22:23, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit : On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: ...I'm currently fighting to get the groovy page to appears in the incubator web site, I'm not lucky atm. I just published http://incubator.apache.org/projects

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Groovy into the Apache Incubator

Le 23/03/15 20:38, Guillaume Laforge a écrit : We're already worrying about it enough, don't frighten us ;-))) Mentors, get the whip out, they are ready ;-) Congrats guys, this is the very first step, not the most interesting one !

Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...

Le 26/03/15 15:11, Upayavira a écrit : On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: I think we are going a bit too far here. Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back in 2003). AL 2.0 says : Subject to the terms and conditions of this License

Re: [VOTE] Accept Groovy into the Apache Incubator

Le 19/03/15 07:55, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit : Following the discussion earlier in the thread: http://s.apache.org/KWE I would like to call a VOTE for accepting Groovy as a new incubator project. The proposal is available at: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal and is

Re: wiki access needed for openAz incubator

Le 07/04/15 17:14, DRAGOSH, PAMELA L (PAM) a écrit : Hi, I just created the user account DragoshPamela, I need to be able to update the April 2015 wiki for the OpenAz podling. Thanks, Pam Hi Pam, if you can't update the wiki (you just have to log in the wiki with the user you created),

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

Le 25/06/15 09:21, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : Am 24.06.2015 22:32, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: Le 24/06/15 22:28, David Nalley a écrit : [...] More generally to the underlying issue that prompted this discussion: With the concrete example of Geode's DockerHub presence, I don't think it's

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

Le 24/06/15 22:28, David Nalley a écrit : On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: +1 (to this and Jochen's response) Roman was explicit in his question about clearly identifiable non-release artifacts available to the general public.

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

Le 24/06/15 14:04, Marvin Humphrey a écrit : On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: There is nothing preventing clearly identifiable non-release artifacts available to the general public. The Releases Policy page forbids it explicitly:

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

Le 24/06/15 19:21, Marvin Humphrey a écrit : On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: We can debate words on a page forever, or we can work with the intent and get on with producing software. Amen. So when's that Geode release coming?

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

Le 24/06/15 09:19, Rob Vesse a écrit : Personally I think the policy should be clarified such that nightly builds MUST only live on ASF infrastructure Non sense. Nightly built can stay wherever is suitable. It's not The ASF business anyway, The ASF does not endorse nighly build or non-release

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 16/07/15 18:49, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit : On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: Le 16/07/15 10:41, Justin Mclean a écrit : Hi, This vote passes with 4 binding +1 votes, no 0 notes, and 2 -1 binding votes. If you read carefully I think you find

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 16/07/15 19:48, Daniel Gruno a écrit : Can someone show me where in the bylaws this dreaded and apparently mandatory 72+ hour window is? When last I looked, it was the preferred thing to do in most circumstances, it was not _MANDATED BY LAW_. Nobody said that. However, I like it when a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 13/07/15 16:09, Cédric Champeau a écrit : 2015-07-13 16:03 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com: Le 13/07/15 13:48, Daniel Gruno a écrit : Where is this documentation? If it is stated anywhere that people.apache.org is an acceptable place for RCs, it is clearly wrong and needs

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 13/07/15 13:48, Daniel Gruno a écrit : Where is this documentation? If it is stated anywhere that people.apache.org is an acceptable place for RCs, it is clearly wrong and needs fixing. It's not written, it's a common usage for almost all of the projects, AFAICT. It's good to know that it's

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Hi, my +1 (Binding), for the source package. Addressing Justin's issues : There *are* issues, but considering the security issue fixed in this release, I'd rather have this version out. - The build scripts are failing because there are Windows file (^M at the end of ech line). Removing them

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 16/07/15 10:41, Justin Mclean a écrit : Hi, This vote passes with 4 binding +1 votes, no 0 notes, and 2 -1 binding votes. If you read carefully I think you find there were 3 -1 votes on the binary releases. True. I -1 the binary release. Interesting case : should we release if we have

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 16/07/15 20:43, Alex Harui a écrit : IMO, what would really help would be a step-by-step guide to examining a release for L N issues. Justin explained part of his technique in this thread already. The person creating the release artifacts should have a decent chance at finding these

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 17/07/15 01:02, Justin Mclean a écrit : Hi, +1 ! And adding such a tool into rat or whatever would be extremely helpful, too... The “tools” I use generally make a bit of noise and require some interpretation / filtering so I’m not sure they could be automated cleanly. One thing rat

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 17/07/15 09:21, Cédric Champeau a écrit : Lets be clear, what I was referring to is this: the identified LN issue is a non-code change that has no implication to the stability of your release whatsoever. Hence manually fixing it, re-spinning the RC and calling a shortened (12-24h) vote

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 17/07/15 09:28, Cédric Champeau a écrit : Thanks Justin. We had read that document, but even reading the binary section, it wasn't clear that source and binary LN had to be different. Guiding Principle : The |LICENSE| and |NOTICE| files must *exactly* represent the contents of the

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 17/07/15 12:02, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : Am 17.07.2015 09:31, schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny: [...] Now, I'm a bit scared : why the hell can't we make it easier to cut a release at Apache for this project ? I mean, the infrastructure should not be a limitation here : we do have a CI, we most

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating

Le 13/07/15 23:21, Justin Mclean a écrit : Hi, - LICENSE : I can't find the normalize.css file. See: ./subprojects/groovy-docgenerator/src/main/resources/org/codehaus/groovy/tools/stylesheet.css

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Groovy from the Incubator

Le 29/10/15 02:43, Marvin Humphrey a écrit : > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> The incubation checklist looks good. The language of the graduation >>>> resolution looks good, but one thing: >

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Groovy from the Incubator

[X] +1 Graduate Apache Groovy from the Incubator. Obviously ! Le 28/10/15 22:14, Marvin Humphrey a écrit : >> >> I lurked on the Groovy dev list for a while and they did great. The >> community handled some pretty challenging licensing stuff well (stars >> to Paul King for doing some heavy

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Groovy from the Incubator

2 > +1s >> total, 5 are binding: >> >> Guillaume Laforge >> Cédric Champeau >> Paul King >> Jochen Theodorou >> Pascal Schumacher >> Emmanuel Lécharny (binding) >> Bertrand Delacretaz (binding) >> Andrew Ba

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

Le 05/11/15 13:48, Joe Brockmeier a écrit : > On 11/05/2015 03:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: >>> PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the codebase, >>> which is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar" >>> should be. It's about trust. If you trust

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

Le 18/10/15 10:48, Martijn Dashorst a écrit : > -1 on requiring all projects to do this exercise. It is not policy, > and frankly as a volunteer organization we can let the communities > themselves determine whether this is something they want to spend > their time on. Well, I unerstand your

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

Le 15/10/15 11:46, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit : > Hi Incubator PMC, > > FYI I have started an experiment at > https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/blob/master/MATURITY.adoc , > using our maturity model to evaluate Groovy before its mentors suggest > its graduation (which should happen very

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

Le 15/10/15 13:49, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit : > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> ...I do think >> that an audit of all the existing TLP should be done in the next month >> to check if all the iterms are correc

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

Le 15/10/15 16:28, Filip Hanik a écrit : > On Thursday, October 15, 2015, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Le 15/10/15 13:17, Rich Bowen a écrit : >>> A huge +1, but I wonder about a few things. Who does the work? >> I guess that each PMC

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

Le 12/10/15 13:18, Rich Bowen a écrit : > Fellow mentors, > > There was a conversation at ApacheCon about the Incubator. I'll leave > it to the other participants to champion the particular parts that > they are passionate about, but I was particularly concerned with > mentor disengagement, and

Re: Require projects to have solid API docs

Le 11/10/15 17:59, Andrew Pennebaker a écrit : > In the future, could Apache Incubator require projects to maintain better > API documentation before graduation? In particular, Kafka has rather sparse > documentation in v0.8. The Javadocs appear to be randomly hosted on this or > that professor

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Le 18/11/15 17:54, Ross Gardler a écrit : > Summarizing: > > In a healthy project I believe that the only significant things that change > between CTR and RTC are: > > 1) speed of commit (CTR is faster) > 2) quality of master, not releases (RTC catches most issues before commit, > CTR shortly

Re: Question related to IP Clearance and software grant

Le 01/09/15 18:15, Andrea Pescetti a écrit : > jan i wrote: >> Your concern is valid for all countries in EU. except if a country has a >> exception. the default in the IT industry is that the employer >> need to allow you to do similar work off hours ... >> in any case copyright belong to the

Re: Question related to IP Clearance and software grant

Le 01/09/15 16:36, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit : > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ...is a code donation require a software grant signed from the employer of >> the people who wrote the code ? In

Question related to IP Clearance and software grant

Hi guys, is a code donation require a software grant signed from the employer of the people who wrote the code ? In other words, do we require that the employer explicitely allow the employees to work on some code ? M understanding is that it's required, and the employer must sign the grant and

Re: Question related to IP Clearance and software grant

Le 01/09/15 16:55, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit : > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ...typically, the copyright might be claimed by >> the employer, as if the code was written during day job, which then may >&g

Re: Question related to IP Clearance and software grant

Le 01/09/15 16:55, jan i a écrit : > On 1 September 2015 at 16:44, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Le 01/09/15 16:36, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit : >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...

Re: Evaluation the interest of EasyMock at Apache

Le 23/09/15 08:45, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit : > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Henry Saputra > wrote: >> ...you should not worry too much about having the project to be in >> incubator forever... > That's assuming the community grows. > >

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Le 18/11/15 11:31, Stephen Connolly a écrit : > I believe the issue here is that with CTR it is very easy to miss the 72h > lazy consensus voting (with an assumed +1 absence any votes cast) that most > CTR projects operate under... and thus it can also be very easy to miss the > fact that there

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Le 18/11/15 08:12, Todd Lipcon a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> Except that there seems to be great disagreement among the Members as to >>> whether RTC is somehow anti-Apache-Way. >>> >&

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Le 18/11/15 14:34, Stephen Connolly a écrit : > On Wednesday 18 November 2015, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Le 18/11/15 11:31, Stephen Connolly a écrit : >>> I believe the issue here is that with CTR it is very easy to miss the

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Le 18/11/15 03:06, Todd Lipcon a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > >> On the contrary... The business of the Incubator and IPMC is to help >> podlings >> and their communities to grok and follow the Apache Way. Trust is a >> foundation >>

[VOTE] OpenAZ retirement

Hi ! Despite an effort to reboot the project in april, we weren't successful in keeping the existing committers active. At this point, a decision to retire the podling was taken, and a vote was don eon the PPMC :

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Le 25/09/16 à 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit : > It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases > contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list. And this is the reason you have mentors and a champion. Follow their advices, you'll be fine (because if

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Le 26/09/16 à 07:32, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > >> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish. > > Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would mean > we'd have few others on the list than

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Le 24/09/16 à 15:18, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit : > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > > >> Correct. The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the >> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a >> key point of self-governance is

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Le 24/09/16 à 01:25, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit : > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> Hi Wade, >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler >> wrote: >>> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on

  1   2   >