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

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Gangumalla, Uma wrote: > BTW, there were 5 binding votes. Oops. Sorry for the miscount! I mistakenly searched for "Gangumalla" rather than "umamahesh" in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc, but I should

[RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Spot into the Apache Incubator

The vote passes, with 7 +1 votes (4 binding) and no -1 votes. +1 Jarek Jarcec Cecho (binding) +1 Gangumalla, Uma +1 Todd Lipcon (binding) +1 Tom White (binding) +1 Zheng, Kai +1 Stack (binding) +1 Debo Dutta Thanks all for voting. Spot has been accepted for Incubation at Apache. Welcome Spot!

[VOTE] Accept Spot into the Apache Incubator

wick * Diego Ortiz: Intel * Sudharshan Rao PakalaSai: Cloudwick * Srinivasa Reddy: Cloudera * Alan Ross: Intel * Everardo Lopez Sandoval: Intel * Nathan Segerlind: Intel * Vartika Singh: Cloudera * Nathanael Smith: Intel * Carlos Villavicencio: Intel == Sponsors == === Champion === *

Re: [DISCUSS] Spot Incubation Proposal

t; On a cursory look this seems related to the currently incubating Metron > project. The documentation on both projects is relatively scarce. Do you > happen to have any insight on overlap between those two or am I completely > off here by comparing those two? > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016

[DISCUSS] Spot Incubation Proposal

Alan Ross: Intel * Everardo Lopez Sandoval: Intel * Nathan Segerlind: Intel * Vartika Singh: Cloudera * Nathanael Smith: Intel * Carlos Villavicencio: Intel == Sponsors == === Champion === * Doug Cutting - Cloudera === Nominated Mentors === * Brock Noland - ASF Member, phData * Jarek Ja

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Dataflow Incubator Proposal

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > As a regular english word, "beam" cannot be trademarked, by others/us. Like Windows® or Apple®? Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Doug On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala > to the ASF Incubator. > > I'd like

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Doug On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Chris Douglas wrote: > +1 (binding) -C > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like > to > > call a

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available.

Re: What is The Apache Way?

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: I think a better analogy would be US Culture. Yes it is as nebulous as it gets, but the fact that US Constitution exists as a written document makes a LOT of things WAY easier. Apache's constitution is the corporate

Re: What is The Apache Way?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:41 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: Can a project use an external bug tracker? Can a project use a third-parties CI system? Can a project host their website outside of the ASF? Can a project avoid a users mailing list and move to StackOverflow? Can projects use

Re: What is The Apache Way?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: So, either a lot of us are really stupid, or the Foundation as a whole has a gap between the general principles and their application. No, we can't have a rule book that details every particle of how to run an Apache

Re: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator report sign-off)

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote: I'd much rather we be clear with projects right up front, saying something like: To join the Incubator, you need one or more mentors. To get to graduation, you will need the support of those mentors. If mentors become

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: I do question the need to dissolve the IPMC Indeed. Chris' proposal is not exclusive with keeping the Incubator as it is. Folks could currently submit a resolution to the board to start a TLP and

Re: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Spark from the Incubator

+1 Doug On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Chris Mattmann mattm...@apache.org wrote: Hi Everyone, This is a new VOTE to decide if Apache Spark should graduate from the Incubator. Please VOTE on the resolution pasted below the ballot. I'll leave this VOTE open for at least 72 hours. Thanks!

Re: IP Clearance before releasing

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: There's no whistleblower provision for someone who thinks they see something that puts the foundation at risk from stopping those to don't see it. If there's a clear legal problem with a release candidate I'd expect others

Re: Changing moderation settings

You shouldn't need to subscribe jira to your list. Rather just 'allow' a message by using reply-all to a moderation request so that all future posts from that sender are accepted. Doug On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Chen, Pei pei.c...@childrens.harvard.eduwrote:

Re: [VOTE] Accept Twill for Incubation

+1 Doug On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Andreas Neumann a...@apache.org wrote: The discussion about the Weave proposal has calmed. As the outcome of the discussion, we have chosen a new name for the project, Twill. I would like to call a vote for Twill to become an incubated project. The

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: The thread on members@ was titled Committer Qualifications. I asked a question about the -1 vote on 9/7/13 and the reply I got was that committer voting does not have vetoes, and the document at [1] also seems to say that. I

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: To me, agreeing on the norm is not the same as policy, especially policy that does not allow for exceptions. I agree. Establishing whether there is a norm is a useful first step. That's what I'm trying to take. Thus far I've

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: I'm not sure I understand the difference between consensus and unanimous consensus. Your thoughts? The difference seems to be the quorum requirement of 3 +1 votes in the case of consensus but not in unanimous consensus. They

Re: Apache project bylaws

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@gmail.com wrote: The whole reason this come about is because it's unclear what voting rules are the default when voting someone in as committer. See [1] (consensus) and [2] (majority). If -1 is a veto or not is sort of important

Re: Apache project bylaws

I don't find the discussion on members@ that comes to this conclusion. If you cannot see members@ how do you know this? Doug On Oct 1, 2013 6:06 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I see no discrepancy between the documents you cite. The first says that committer votes are

Re: Apache project bylaws

Lots of people on this list are also on members@, and, so far, none have objected to my statements. If this continues, it would indicate a lack of controversy. Doug On Oct 1, 2013 7:36 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I don't find the discussion on members@ that comes to

Re: Voting in Committers

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: The answer I got on members@ is that [1] is not a policy document and therefore a vote as to whether to make someone a committer defaults to majority rules unless the TLP has voted otherwise, and a -1 vote is not a veto unless

[RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Storm into the Incubator

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote: I'd like to call a vote to accept Storm as a new Incubator podling. This passes, with lots of +1 votes (plenty by PMC members) and no -1 votes. Thanks for voting. Doug

[VOTE] Accept Storm into the Incubator

== === Champion === * Doug Cutting cutting at apache dot org === Nominated Mentors === * Ted Dunning tdunning at maprtech dot com * Arvind Prabhakar arvind at apache dot org * Devaraj Das ddas at hortonworks dot com * Matt Franklin m.ben.franklin at gmail dot com * Benjamin Hindman

Re: Moderation of report reminders

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: So why not pre-allow all automated senders when creating the podling list? Why not pre-allow *@apache.org? Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:29 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: Alternatively, you could say enough is enough and to end the debate you're going to call a vote to demonstrate i've the PMCs support - a vote on letting ant stay on. That sounds like you're being nice, but in fact you're

Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote: I think it should be 3/4 majority. I agree that supermajority would be better than simple majority here. Moving to simple majority seems too radical. Over time it's more prone to building a PMC that cannot easily

Re: No more existing-TLP graduations (was: [PROPOSAL] Curator for the Apache Incubator)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Guys, this was my point a few weeks ago, and the question I posed to the board. Did the board discuss it at the meeting, or is that part of the board meeting happening here? Here is the comment I made in response to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Crunch 0.5.0 (incubating) RC0

+1 Checksums signatures match, tests pass, licencing looks to be in order. Doug On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Josh Wills jwi...@apache.org wrote: Hello, This is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Crunch 0.5.0 (incubating). This is our third release at

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Crunch Podling from the Incubator

+1 Doug On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Josh Wills jwi...@apache.org wrote: This is a call to graduate the Apache Crunch podling from Apache Incubator. Apache Crunch entered the Incubator in May of 2012. We have made significant progress with the project since moving over to Apache. We have

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Etch podling from Apache Incubator

+1 Doug On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Martin Veith martin.ve...@bmw-carit.de wrote: This is a call for vote to graduate the Apache Etch podling from Apache Incubator. The Apache Etch project entered the Incubator in September 2008. Since then it has had ups and downs but we feel ready

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Crunch 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

+1 RAT tests pass (as do others), checksums sigs match. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Matthias Friedrich m...@mafr.de wrote: Hi, this is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Crunch 0.4.0 (incubating). This is the second release candidate of our second release

Re: [VOTE] Apache Crunch (incubating) 0.3.0 Release Candidate 1

+1 Downloaded sources, ran RAT, validated checksums. Doug On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Josh Wills jwi...@apache.org wrote: Hello everyone, This is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Crunch 0.3.0 (incubating). This will be our first release. A vote was held

Re: [VOTE] Accept Drill into the Apache Incubator

Otis said his vote was 'blinding', not 'binding'. Doug On Aug 11, 2012 12:28 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: This vote is now closed. In the responses to this thread, I count 15 binding positive votes and 4 non-binding votes. The number of positive votes increases to 17 if you

Re: [VOTE] Accept Blur into the Apache Incubator

(ryan.gimmy at nearinfinity dot com) * Tim Williams (twilliams at apache dot org) * Patrick Hunt (phunt at apache dot org) * Doug Cutting (cutting at apache dot org) == Affiliations == * Aaron !McCurry, Near Infinity * Scott Leberknight, Near Infinity * Ryan Gimmy, Near Infinity * Patrick

Re: [VOTE] Accept Crunch into the Apache Incubator

+1 Doug On 05/23/2012 11:45 AM, Josh Wills wrote: I would like to call a vote for accepting Apache Crunch for incubation in the Apache Incubator. The full proposal is available below. We ask the Incubator PMC to sponsor it, with phunt as Champion, and phunt, tomwhite, and acmurthy

Re: [VOTE] CloudStack for Apache Incubator

+1 Doug On Apr 9, 2012 6:32 PM, Kevin Kluge kevin.kl...@citrix.com wrote: Hi All. I'd like to call for a VOTE for CloudStack to enter the Incubator. The proposal is available at [1] and I have also included it below. Please vote with: +1: accept CloudStack into Incubator +0: don't care

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flume version 1.1.0-incubating (rc1)

+1 Checksums and signatures match, tests pass, RAT finds no issues. Doug On 03/19/2012 05:46 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote: This is the second incubator release for Apache Flume, version 1.1.0-incubating. We are now voting on release candidate rc1. *** Please cast your vote within the next 72

Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)

On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think that we might have had some basis to these package namespace issues. The recent private Lucene-Commons threads show what can happen if this policy is that hmmm liberal. Don't

Re: Thoughts on Incubator board reports

Jukka, This sounds like a great plan to me. Providing the board with a summary demonstrates that the IPMC has reviewed all of the podling reports and assessed the progress of each podling. Also including the full podling reports to the board both gives supporting evidence to the podling

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator

On 02/29/2012 01:33 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: No project should be allowed to graduate without solving all issues pertaining to marks. It's a failure of the incubator in the past for allowing other projects to do so. I'm shocked it was allowed. This is not a trademark issue. Package names are

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator

On 02/29/2012 06:19 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: The class/package names are merely not being deleted. Presuming that the original code was part of the inceptional code grant, one can conclude that the company in question doesn't mind their namespace being used by ASF projects *for that

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator

On 02/28/2012 12:59 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: That namespace is a mark of Cloudera. Package names are not generally considered to be trademarks. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator

On 02/28/2012 06:01 AM, Ate Douma wrote: And specifically as this seems to concern compatibility support for Cloudera own API, only needed for Cloudera customers. Sqoop was an Apache-licensed open source project at Github before it came to Apache. It's thus safe to assume that it had users who

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving forward

On 02/09/2012 07:42 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: 2. I wrote an Incubator deconstruction proposal here: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal I still wholly believe in the proposal and that it should be implemented. It contains a series of (potentially

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

+1 Doug On 02/09/2012 07:16 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: Hi Folks, OK there has been enough discussion here. It's time to VOTE for a new IPMC chair and it looks like the remaining folks (including me) that were in the running have aligned beyond the following nominee: Jukka

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

On 02/09/2012 08:39 AM, sebb wrote: In case it's not obvious, I agree with Ross, Andrus and Marcel - I think the current VOTE thread is invalid and should be cancelled. I don't see how it is invalid. Chris might have added more choices or invited more discussion first, but he can call a vote.

Re: PMC chair vs. reorg proposals

On 02/05/2012 11:40 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: If the board decides to go that way, I am happy to see Chris in charge of the transition. It's not the board's decision to make. The folks in the Incubator need to decide what they as volunteers want to do. As a board member, either approach is

too much traffic here

On 02/04/2012 09:15 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: We both care about this stuff, which is why we keep replying. I'm happy to continue to reply, so long as you are when I feel it's warranted. I've ignored a few of them that I didn't have the energy to, but that's the point of a mailing

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 02/02/2012 09:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board hats on? Great too. Would be great to get opinions now rather than have to wait. I like the simplicity of erasing the layer of management that is the Incubator. The board is a

Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes

On 01/30/2012 05:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote: I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corporate concerns masked otherwise). People have said in the past, you should have veto so you're not forced to work with

comments for Incubator PMC from board

Incubator PMC, Recent reports from your PMC to the board do not appear to have been thoroughly reviewed. Prior to submitting your report to the board, the Incubator PMC should review all podling reports, note problems, and, when needed, take action. Direct podling oversight is the

Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement

On 01/03/2012 07:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: [1] I don't see it as our place to *judge* communities. If it is a fork, or a corporate spin-out, or a move, or brand new... All Good. [2] At Apache, all contributions are voluntary. We do not accept code from copyright owners who

Re: [VOTE] Release for Bigtop version 0.2.0-incubating

+1 Signatures and checksums look good. Rat reports no license problems. Doug On 11/02/2011 06:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: This is the second incubator release for Apache Bigtop, version 0.2.0-incubating. It fixes the following issues:

Re: [VOTE] S4 to join the Incubator

+1 Doug On Sep 20, 2011 1:57 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote: It's been a nearly a week since the S4 proposal was submitted for discussion. A few questions were asked, and the proposal was clarified in response. Sufficient mentors have volunteered. I thus feel we are now ready for a

[RESULT] [VOTE] Accumulo to join the Incubator

This passes, with 20 +1 votes, plenty of them binding, and no -1 votes. Thanks to all who voted! We can now get started creating the Apache Accumulo podling. Doug On 09/09/2011 09:22 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: It's been a week since the Accumulo proposal was submitted for discussion. A few

[VOTE] Accumulo to join the Incubator

* John Vines, National Security Agency * Chris Waring, National Security Agency == Sponsors == * Champion: Doug Cutting == Nominated Mentors == * Benson Margulies * Alan Cabrera * Bernd Fondermann * Owen O'Malley == Sponsoring Entity == * Apache Incubator

Re: [VOTE] Release Whirr version 0.6.0-incubating

On 08/24/2011 07:09 PM, Andrei Savu wrote: Now that the resolution was accepted by the board is no longer possible to have a last release as an incubator project? Whirr is no longer an incubator project. Whirr can now make releases without permission from the Incubator PMC. Even if the

Re: [VOTE] Release for Bigtop version 0.1.0-incubating RC2

+1 Checksums signatures are correct and RAT reports no serious problems. Doug On 08/22/2011 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote: This is the first incubator release for Apache Bigtop, version 0.1.0-incubating. It fixes the following issues:

Re: [VOTE] Graduation of the Whirr Podling

-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-whirr-dev/201107.mbox/%3ccabqr8u8nttkqxjerp-txnn4jljrvqyrsrqxuesjiyq2td53...@mail.gmail.com%3E The vote received 7 PPMC approvals, of which 3 were also IPMC members (Patrick Hunt, Doug Cutting, and myself). I would like to ask the IPMC to approve the graduation

Re: [VOTE] Oozie to join the Incubator

+1 Doug On 06/29/2011 12:10 PM, Mohammad Islam wrote: Hi All, The discussion about Oozie proposal is settling down. Therefore I would like to initiate a vote to accept Oozie as an Apache Incubator project. The latest proposal is pasted at the end and it could be found in the wiki as

Re: [VOTE] Accept Bigtop for incubation

+1 Doug On 06/17/2011 07:15 PM, Tom White wrote: As there are no active discussions on the proposal thread, I would like to initiate a vote to accept Bigtop as an Apache Incubator project. The proposal is available at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BigtopProposal?action=recallrev=13

Re: [VOTE] MRUnit entry into the incubator

+1 Doug On 03/01/2011 05:16 PM, Eric Sammer wrote: All: Discussions from the [PROPOSAL] thread seem to have tapered off so I'd like to call a vote on accepting MRUnit into the incubator. I'm re-pasting the proposal for simplicity. We'll leave the vote open for 72 hours. Thanks! =

Re: [VOTE] Accept Lucene.Net for incubation

+1 Doug On 01/26/2011 10:05 PM, Troy Howard wrote: All, Since posting the Lucene.Net Incubator proposal announcement on Jan 12th, we now have three mentors signed up and would like to call a vote to accept Lucene.Net into the Apache Incubator. The proposal is included below and can also be

Re: [VOTE][PROPOSAL] EasyAnt incubator

+1 Doug On 01/24/2011 09:14 AM, Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be sponsored by the Ant PMC for a new EasyAnt podling. The proposal is available on the wiki at and included below: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/EasyAntProposal [] +1

Re: [PROPOSAL] Mesos Project

+1 Doug On 12/13/2010 02:08 PM, Matei Zaharia wrote: We would like to propose Mesos as an incubator proposal. Mesos is a resource manager for clusters that provides resource sharing and isolation across distributed applications like Apache Hadoop, MPI, or web applications. It started as a

Re: [VOTE] Accept Wave into the incubator

+1 Doug On 11/29/2010 10:52 PM, Dan Peterson wrote: Hi everyone, Please vote on the acceptance of Wave into the Apache incubator. The proposal is available at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WaveProposal (for your convenience, a snapshot is also copied below) The earlier discussion thread

Re: [VOTE] Release Whirr version 0.2.0-incubating

+1 Checksums sigs are correct. Licensing looks good. Doug On 11/10/2010 08:59 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote: This is the second incubator release for Apache Whirr, version 0.2.0-incubating. PPMC release vote thread: http://markmail.org/message/kdfnohhod6wdrqaz The issues fixed for

Re: [VOTE] Thrift 0.5.0 RC1

+1 Looks good to me! Doug On 10/04/2010 09:47 AM, Bryan Duxbury wrote: I propose that we accept http://people.apache.org/~bryanduxbury/thrift-0.5.0-rc1.tar.gzhttp://people.apache.org/%7Ebryanduxbury/thrift-0.5.0-rc1.tar.gzas the official Thrift 0.5.0 release. I produced this tarball by

Re: [VOTE] Release Whirr version 0.1.0-incubating

+1 Checked that src tarball has a correct signature md5sum. Also ran RAT over the extracted sources and the licensing looks good. Doug On 09/14/2010 11:19 AM, Tom White wrote: This is the first incubator release for Apache Whirr, version 0.1.0-incubating. We already received one binding

Re: [PROPOSAL] Gora to enter Incubator

+1 Sounds like a great project. Doug On 09/13/2010 06:10 AM, Enis Soztutar wrote: Hi all, We would like to announce the Proposal for Gora, an ORM for Colum Stores, for the Apache Incubation. We believe that Gora can find a nice home at Apache. Wiki of the proposal can be found at

Re: Thrift 0.3.0 RC6

+1 Checked signature, checksum and ran RAT. All looked good. Doug On 07/28/2010 12:28 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote: All, RC5 went out to gene...@incubator and met some resistance. I've make fixes to the branch and I believe we're ready to go again. I propose we accept RC6 as the official version

Re: [VOTE] Move Lucy to the Incubator

-project, with David Balmain (author of Ferret, a Ruby/C port of Lucene), Doug Cutting, and Marvin Humphrey (founder of KinoSearch, a Perl/C port) as committers. During an initial burst of activity, the overall architecture for Lucy was sketched out by Dave and Marvin. Unfortunately, Dave became

Re: [VOTE] Accept Whirr for Incubation

Purtell, Trend Micro * Johan Oskarsson, Twitter * Steve Loughran, HP Labs * Patrick Hunt, Yahoo! == Sponsors == === Champion === * Tom White === Nominated Mentors === * Doug Cutting * Tom White * Steve Loughran === Sponsoring Entity === * Incubator PMC

Re: [PROPOSAL] Whirr Project

Tom White wrote: The proposal is on the incubator wiki at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhirrProposal. This sounds useful to me. I'd be willing to help mentor. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Traffic Server as a TLP

+1 Traffic Server appears to have met graduation requirements. Doug Bryan Call wrote: Greetings, As no issues have been raised in our previous post to discuss graduation, the Apache Traffic Server community requests that the IPMC vote on recommending this resolution to the ASF Board.

Re: Question on tlps using incubator releases

Patrick Hunt wrote: Are there any issues with Apache tlps using incubator releases? I've heard, but cannot find any official documentation, that tlps should not. Is this really the case? Are there any rules/guidelines for this? I don't think this is a problem. One project can even release

Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of apache-trafficserver-incubating-2.0.0-alpha

Hedstrom [+1] George Paul [+1] John Plevyak [+1] Bryan Call [+1] Jean-Frederic Clere [+1] Doug Cutting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h

Re: Droid IP clearance?

Thorsten Scherler wrote: The initial code was based on Apache Nutch so all the IP were cleared there. The modification that have been done by myself are all done as ASF committer. There have been code adopted from Henri Yandell patch to HttpComponents which as well had been cleared by himself as

Droid IP clearance?

Incubator PMC, On reading this month's report to the Board from the Incubator, the Board was curious what, if anything, is blocking Droid's IP clearance process and requested that I look into this. Is someone actively pursuing this? If so, are there any difficulties in obtaining the

WSRP4J stuck?

Incubator PMC, On reading this month's report to the Board from the Incubator, the Board was concerned about the inactivity in WSRP4J. Has this project been abandoned, or is there some other explanation for the lack of any activity in the last three months? Thanks! Doug

avro in mapreduce

I would like to call folks attention to MAPREDUCE-1126. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-1126 This is a key link in a series of issues involved in integrating Avro in Mapreduce. Aaron proposed a design in early December, building on the design Tom developed last summer and

avro in mapreduce

I would like to call folks attention to MAPREDUCE-1126. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-1126 This is a key link in a series of issues involved in integrating Avro in Mapreduce. Aaron proposed a design in early December, building on the design Tom developed last summer and

Re: avro in mapreduce

Oops. Wrong list. Nothing to see here. Doug Doug Cutting wrote: I would like to call folks attention to MAPREDUCE-1126. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-1126 This is a key link in a series of issues involved in integrating Avro in Mapreduce. Aaron proposed a design in early

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Branko Čibej wrote: Actually, we're talking about API documentation which in Subversion's case is generated from the sources, so yes, it is subject to release votes. But only for actual releases. Restricting the publishing of generated API documentation would imply that we should restrict

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Branko Čibej wrote: So I'm not too clear on what your objections are. * Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the project Web pages? I object to posting these outside of a clearly-marked developer portion of the project's web site. Then you should start

Re: How documentation != code, and how to do policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Leo Simons wrote: So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want them mostly so they don't have to run doxygen themselves. There's really

Re: How documentation != code, and how to do policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Niall Pemberton wrote: You're taking a policy that applies to release artifacts and stretching it to something it wasn't intended to cover. Applying the rules for releases to significant subsets of releases doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Subsets are subject to the same copyright

Re: How documentation != code, and how to do policy (was: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion)

Doug Cutting wrote: In the absence of specific policy then *objections* are out of order I have not objected to anything. Forgive me. I did in fact use the verb object in a prior message: * Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the project Web pages? I

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be sufficient and follow this best practice? I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard Roy indicate that all developer-specific stuff should be under a dev/ URL. I think it would be

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Joe Schaefer wrote: Exactly. That's the key difference between a release and a website, we can't take the release back. Good point. We don't mirror the website on 3rd party sites like we do releases, nor does HTTPD currently package pre-release docs as an archive that folks might download

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Paul Querna wrote: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ Which is linked from the sidebar everywhere, and on the docs page: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/ That trunk documentation is at least labelled dev. I'd argue it should only be linked to from http://httpd.apache.org/dev/ and that it

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Niall Pemberton wrote: It might be good a good idea to not confuse users trying to find docs that relate to a release from that of of the current trunk, but its doing incubating projects a disservice to try and make out that release policy cover the docs they publish on their web site. Don't

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Niall Pemberton wrote: What we publish on the ASF websites doesn't have to conform to the licensing policy that releases do. I'm not talking about the website in general. I'm talking specifically about publishing content primarily intended for inclusion in releases. Would we permit someone

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Niall Pemberton wrote: I would prefer what I say isn't distorted by selective editing. Sorry, that was not my intent. I'm not talking about the website in general. I'm talking specifically about publishing content primarily intended for inclusion in releases. Would Publication release

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Paul Querna wrote: httpd and apr have published doxygen of their trunks periodically, they aren't based on any release. Were these published these on the official public website or in the dev/ section? I was under the impression that released documentation should be treated similarly to

Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion

Bhuvaneswaran A wrote: We tend to update the api docs generated using doxygen and java doc on a nightly basis. Unreleased artifacts should be linked only from the developer portion of the site and should not be hosted on the official project site. You might, e.g., just link to them on the

  1   2   >