Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE leaving the incubator

+1 (binding) to join Geronimo txs and LieGrue, strub > Am 06.12.2019 um 10:50 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > Hi everyone, > > BatchEE community voted to leave the incubator to join Apache Geronimo as a > subproject. > > Here is the vote thread: >

Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin

+1 (binding) LieGrue, strub Am Mittwoch, den 19.06.2019, 11:11 -0400 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > +1 (binding) > > > On Jun 17, 2019, at 9:21 PM, Sheng Wu wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return > > back to OpenZipkin. > > > > PPMC

Re: [VOTE] Recommend 'Apache NetBeans graduation to Top Level Project' resolution to board

roslav Tulach > * Jean-Marc Borer > * Jiří Kovalský > * Joerg Michelberger > * Johan Vos > * John Kostaras > * John McDonnell > * Josh Juneau > * José Pereda > * Junichi Yamamoto > * Kirk Pepperdine > * Lars Bruun-Hansen > * Laszlo Kishalmi > * Leo

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

One also has to see that NetBeans is an exceptionally big and complex podling! For most other projects the existing process works really fine. LieGrue, strub > Am 01.04.2019 um 11:35 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga > : > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:27 AM Mark Struberg > wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

Indeed, and thanks again for jumping in and pushing the review forward! NB is such a huge codebase that it is really hard to do a full cycle review. So any attempt is really appreciated! LieGrue, strub > Am 31.03.2019 um 10:04 schrieb Justin Mclean : > > Hi, > >> It has never been a practice

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

I started my review on the IPMC list but did also test-drive NB11 for a few days because I had functional issues (quirks with missing JavaFX on Fedora). Thus I only casted my +1 only after the vote got moved to general@a.o. Trying to move faster in the future. txs and LieGrue, strub > Am

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

We have also previously already checked those files and also have the sources at hand afaict. So they should be perfectly fine - as they have been in older NB releases (where we had the question as well). LieGrue, strub > Am 30.03.2019 um 07:23 schrieb Wade Chandler : > > On Fri, Mar 29,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

* sig ok * LICENE ok * NOTICE ok * sha512 ok * sources seem to have all the license headers NetBeans 11 rc4  tested for 3 days now. Had a weird JavaFX module not found issue in the beginning but that somehow resolved itself after re-opening the projects. +1 (IPMC binding) LieGrue, strub

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 10.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 5]

+1 (binding) * sig fine * hashes fine * LICENSE, NOTICE fine * binary runs * licenses of the new files look ok LieGrue, strub > Am 21.12.2018 um 20:36 schrieb Laszlo Kishalmi : > > Dear all, > > The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to release > Apache NetBeans

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

+1 with a minor addendum. Smallish contributions do not constitute own Intellectual Property Rights if they do not pass the bar for the 'threshold of originality'. Of course this bar is a grey area. But it's afaict established sense that small bugfixes, and minor contributions (no whole

Re: [VOTE] Accept Zipkin into the Apache Incubator

+1 binding LieGrue, strub > Am 27.08.2018 um 05:33 schrieb 吴晟 Sheng Wu : > > +1 non-binding > > > -- > Sheng Wu > Apache SkyWalking > > > > > > > > -- Original -- > From: "mck"; > Date: Mon, Aug 27, 2018 11:15 AM > To: "general"; > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 3]

Hi folks! * I've checked all the licenses in DEPENDENCIES -> fine * LICENSE in place * NOTICE in place and content fine small note: This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization' - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3 - Unnamed -

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenWhisk (Incubating): main module 0.9.0 [RC2]

+1 (binding) LieGrue, strub > Am 11.07.2018 um 16:38 schrieb Vincent S Hou : > > Dear IPMC members, > > This is a call for vote to release Apache OpenWhisk (Incubating): main module > version 0.9.0. > > The Apache OpenWhisk community has voted on and approved a proposal to > release Apache

Re: [ANN] Please welcome Justin Mclean as the new Incubator PMC chair!

+1 to both! LieGrue, strub > Am 04.06.2018 um 13:33 schrieb Jacques Le Roux : > > Le 04/06/2018 à 12:12, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> John D. Ament recently announced his desire to step down from the >> Incubator PMC chair role. Thank you so much John for your efficient >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1

Hi folks! Justin, thanks for talking such a deep look and catching those flaws, really appreciated! Here is my personal view: It's just test data, and if we can guarantee that the test data is IP clean then it's not a problem. I remember other ASF projects which have class files compiled with

Re: The role of a mentor

+1 I'd also add to the list: explaining the reasons behind some of the things how projects at ASF works. Often people new to the ASF complain about the release checks and procedure. When you explain them the legal impact and our quality goals and the community aspects then they quickly

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] [RESULT] Apache DeltaSpike InterDyn

Good morning! For completness sake: the IP CLEARANCE passed with lazy consensus and no objection. LieGrue, strub > Am 13.02.2018 um 14:04 schrieb Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID>: > > Good afternoon! > > I want to start IP CLEARANCE for Apache DeltaSpike Inte

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3

l includes the jar with unknown contents and > provenance? > > Mark, how could an EPL 1.0 jar with an AL 2 patch applied be uploaded to > maven central? For one thing, what would the maven coordinates be? > > Thanks > David Jencks > > Sent from my iPhone > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3

I think this is reasonably enough for this release. We should keep an eye on it and probably someone can upload a fixed release to maven.central. I've also checked the other parts and found no obvious problem So +1 (binding) txs and LieGrue, strub > Am 13.02.2018 um 08:32 schrieb

[IP CLEARANCE] Apache DeltaSpike InterDyn

Good afternoon! I want to start IP CLEARANCE for Apache DeltaSpike InterDyn. I've moved over code I've developed years ago at https://github.com/struberg/interdyn It ever contained the full ASF headers anyway and is ALv2. I'm also the sole author of the code. This is for inclusion in Apache

Re: [VOTE] Accept Coral into the Apache Incubator

+1 binding LieGrue, strub > Am 01.02.2018 um 15:07 schrieb Byung-Gon Chun : > > Hi all, > > I would like to start a VOTE to propose the Coral project as a podling into > the Apache Incubator. > > The ASF voting rules are described at https://www.apache.org/foundation/ >

Re: [VOTE] Retire Wave

+1 (binding) LieGrue, strub > Am 16.01.2018 um 12:22 schrieb Stian Soiland-Reyes : > > +1 (binding) > > On 8 January 2018 at 18:56, John D. Ament wrote: >> All, >> >> This is a call to vote for the retirement of the Wave podling. >> >> The podling

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache BatchEE 0.5-incubating

Closing the VOTE with the following binding IPMC votes: [+1]: Romain Manni-Bucau, Mark Struberg, Justin Mclean, Jean-Louis Monteiro txs to all who reviewed and voted! LieGrue, strub > Am 12.12.2017 um 07:28 schrieb Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com>: > > Hi > >

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache BatchEE 0.5-incubating

Hi Justin! tldr; I think we are fine and it has been clarified when we started incubation. longer version: IBM developed a JBatch RI at github. They didn't officially submit their JBatch RI as podling but just gave us the OK to do a 'friendly fork'. IBM peeps even actively participate by

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache BatchEE 0.5-incubating

> Am 10.12.2017 um 13:30 schrieb sebb : > >> >> And one more drawback is that ditching a failed release from SVN will _not_ >> free the occupied storage. >> That might or might not be an issue. > > Infra have ways of dealing with that if necessary. Hmm, no. Not that I'm

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache BatchEE 0.5-incubating

; > On 7 December 2017 at 10:22, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote: >> Hi Sebb! >> >> commits got pushed to the ASF repo >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-batchee/commits/master >> >> And we clarified the dist question with Infra. &g

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache BatchEE 0.5-incubating

copied over to dist.a.o once the VOTE did succeed. And we have to ofc make sure that it is really the same as voted upon. We ensure this via the sha1. txs and LieGrue, strub > Am 06.12.2017 um 23:16 schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > > On 6 December 2017 at 17:06, Mark

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache BatchEE 0.5-incubating

umbed...@apache.org> a écrit : > > On 12/06/2017 06:18 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> 2017-12-06 18:14 GMT+01:00 Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org>: >>>> On 12/06/2017 06:10 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>> As explained in the original GIT at ASF threads

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache BatchEE 0.5-incubating

As explained in the original GIT at ASF threads many years ago: you cannot easily get rid of a branch at ASF. Even if we force-push a delete it will _not_ get propagated downstream and would cause clashes if a release needs to be re-rolled. That's the reason why we do NOT push the staging branch

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache BatchEE 0.5-incubating

No sebb, the tag does NOT need to be owned by the PPMC. We just have to make sure that the tag gets moved over to ASF _AFTER_ the vote is closed. That's how GIT works and that's how we work with GIT since many years at the ASF. > The source must be released through the ASF mirror system, > The

Re: [Vote] Release of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Alpha [RC2]

* Dependencies look good * LICENSE ok * NOTICE ok * signature ok * sha1 ok (https://builds.apache.org/view/Incubator%20Projects/job/incubator-netbeans-release/79/artifact/dist/netbeans-platform-source-platform-9.0-alpha.zip..sha1) * bin and sha1 also fine and also contains LICENSE, NOTICE,

Re: [VOTE] Release 1.5.1 of NetBeans HTML/Java API

+1 (binding) over here as well again. LieGrue,strub On Tuesday, 14 November 2017, 10:47:50 GMT+1, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > ...I'd > like to ask you to hold the

Re: [VOTE] Release 1.5 of NetBeans HTML/Java API

Hmm, well, but that usually only happens if it is clear that the vote should get cancelled. LieGrue, strub > Am 22.10.2017 um 15:29 schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > > On 21 October 2017 at 18:27, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote: >>> Even th

Re: [VOTE] Release 1.5 of NetBeans HTML/Java API

me, i.e., >> at the time that the vote expires, if there's no -1, and only +1 binding >> votes, then the release of this specific repo that is one of the repose of >> Apache NetBeans is approved? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gj >> >> On Sat, Oct 21,

Re: [VOTE] Release 1.5 of NetBeans HTML/Java API

the time that the vote expires, if there's no -1, and only +1 binding > votes, then the release of this specific repo that is one of the repose of > Apache NetBeans is approved? > > Thanks, > > Gj > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>

Re: [VOTE] Release 1.5 of NetBeans HTML/Java API

+1 IPMC binding LICENSE, NOTICE, rat, dependencies, signing, etc all looks good. However when building it from the distribution zip on my macbook with java8 144 I sometimes get test errors. All of them in knockout.js, but each time something different: Configuring TestNG with:

Re: [VOTE] Do not accept software grants with conditionals or exclusions

+1 (binding) LieGrue, strub > Am 07.09.2017 um 10:07 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz : > > Hi Incubator PMC. > > We recently received a software grant pointing to an archive file for > the code donation, but mentioning that some material contained in that > archive might

Re: Incubator Governance Change

PS to make it clear: I was just refering to the point of podlings being able to let jenkins publish nightly builds to the ASF snapshots Maven repo. It was not meant as remark to any other of the discussed bullets. LieGrue, strub > Am 24.04.2017 um 21:14 schrieb Mark Struberg <

Re: Incubator Governance Change

Many dozen podlings do exactly that. Why should that not be allowed? Hell freezing over? LieGrue, strub > Am 23.04.2017 um 06:04 schrieb Niclas Hedhman : > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: >> I don't >> think releasing

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Guacamole 0.9.12-incubating (RC1)

In which case +1 from me as well. LieGrue, strub > Am 31.03.2017 um 19:27 schrieb Mike Jumper : > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > >> Mike Jumper wrote: >> >>> * guacamole-auth-header includes some copies of ALv2 and

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Ranger Project from the Incubator - Resending with additional mail distro

+1 (binding) LieGrue, strub > Am 04.01.2017 um 23:48 schrieb Ramesh Mani : > > Dear Incubator members, > > Apache Ranger Project community has successfully released 0.6.2 version and > with it there had been a lot of discussion within Apache Ranger community to >

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Ranger Project from the Incubator

+1 (binding) LieGrue, strub > Am 04.01.2017 um 01:21 schrieb Ramesh Mani : > > Dear Incubator members, > > Apache Ranger Project community has successfully released 0.6.2 version and > with it there had been a lot of discussion within Apache Ranger community to >

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

I guess you are talking about log4j/log4j or the various commons-* groupIds? This is true, but for completness sake I want to point out that there is a difference to use a different _unused_ groupId vs using a _foreign_ one. I guess everyone would agree that the ASF does not like to publish

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

Groovy is a pretty big project and managed to get through incubation in 8 months: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html But I agree that many projects take longer. Sometimes (as with BatchEE) it's pure laziness to not yet have pushed it 'over the line' though :) LieGrue, strub > Am

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

-1 It makes it clear that those artifacts are not yet stable ASF projects yet (legally + community). If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in under 6 months, isn't? Any for any other project I find it quite ok to know what you get. Please also check the

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - November 2016

Hi John! Just signed-off the Sirona report and added a small mentor note. Is it already too late to add this to the summary? txs and LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 8 November 2016, 22:36, John D. Ament > wrote: > > It was probably a gremlin, I see prior edits from

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)

+1 (binding) LieGrue, strub > On Sunday, 6 November 2016, 21:59, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: >> Hi! >> >> after a very positive discussion in the Geode community >> and at the IPMC

Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal

On Friday, 14 October 2016, 16:26, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > wrote: > >> The problem with github is that we (ASF) cannot give any guarantees if the >> main stuff doesn't

Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal

PS we could Force the use of the new -S git Option and verify it with the Pub key stored at the asf. Needs a few Experiments but might work. Lg, Strub On Fri, 14/10/16, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote: Subject: Re: [discuss]

Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal

The problem with github is that we (ASF) cannot give any guarantees if the main stuff doesn't originate from our own hardware. Not whether the ticket system doesn't loose all tickets (didn't that happen in the past?) nor whether really only IP clean stuff got committed. You e.g. have no clue if

Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal

Why isn't it enough to just mirror to github? I only quickly read through the proposal and I'm not sure if thy just stated that _currently_ the repo is on github. With GIT it makes no difference at all where the repo is hosted IF you have a track record (which ASF git-wip does, but github

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

+1 LieGrue, strub > On Thursday, 29 September 2016, 2:00, Olivier Lamy wrote: > > +1 > > On 29 September 2016 at 01:25, Hervé Boutemy wrote: > >> Apache Maven received a code donation for Aether, that we renamed to Maven >> Artifact Resolver to

Re: Git release candidate tagging policy? [was: Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating]

Hi Jochen! The discussion was about whether a local release build (GIT runs locally and a 'commit' doesn't push to the canonical ASF repo) should immediately get pushed to the ASF repo or just to a PMC owned 'other' GIT repo (e.g. on github). In various projects we prefer pushing to github

Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

+1 In practice this is often really a problem with many projects :/ LieGrue, strub > On Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 10:41, Mark Thomas wrote: > > On 20/08/2016 20:59, Mark Thomas wrote: >> All, >> >> It seems there is general consensus that this is a good idea. I'm

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

testing) > 25. *Wade Chandler* (Independent, working on Groovy support) > 26. Zoran Sevarac (plugins for teaching/education) > > * Individual contributors from NetBeans plugin developers. > 1. Georgia Ingham

Re: Git release candidate tagging policy? [was: Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating]

level). LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 21:21, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > On 2016-09-27 09:44, Mark Struberg wrote: >> Hi Ate! >> >> It's quite natural that many other projects just point to DeltaSpike. >> D

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

+1 LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 14:11, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > >> Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a >> vote?..

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

That's weird. Which Java version do you exactly use? I did run the full build with java7 and it passed perfectly fine. LieGrue, strub On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 12:24, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >-0 (non-binding) -- changes my previous -1 vote after dist/ was

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

+1 I assume we will have a 'contribute' section on the official site which explains this and also educate people to please mention their previous contributions on their first contact on the Apache NetBeans mailing lists. That way we can easily pick up people with merit that predates the ASF

Re: Git release candidate tagging policy? [was: Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating]

ber 2016, 9:44, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > > Hi Ate! > > It's quite natural that many other projects just point to DeltaSpike. > DS was in 2011 amongst the very first projects using GIT at the ASF. > > One of the results of this effort (toget

Re: Git release candidate tagging policy? [was: Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating]

of release process and exit criteria" thread. But I agree it might be time to collect all these informations together and write an incubator compendium for it. LieGrue, strub > On Monday, 26 September 2016, 22:09, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber >> > <http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory >> > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > >> > >> > 2016-09-26 17:59 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Buc

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

ould be easy to fix with >>> a few svn commands on https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/. >>> >>> The older Batchee releases are already voted over - although without >>> checksums in the email - but this is the incubator so I guess they can >>> just be dug

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

onday, 26 September 2016, 17:25, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:23 AM Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > wrote: > >> Stian, this is established practice in the ASF since the very early days &

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

. But that's of course not good enough. We gonna fix that. txs and LieGrue, strub > On Monday, 26 September 2016, 17:22, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > > Stian, this is established practice in the ASF since the very early days of > playing with GIT

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

against Maven SCM? txs and LieGrue, strub > On Monday, 26 September 2016, 16:34, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> > wrote: > > On 26 September 2016 at 14:34, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > wrote: >> We *never* push commits for i

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi Stian! We *never* push commits for in-progress votes to hte ASF repos when we use GIT! The reason is that we cannot get rid of those afterwards! Of course we can delete the branch/tag/commit from the ASF repo, but we cannot delete them from all the hundreds downstream repos which almost

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi Justin! First, thanks for the review! The question got asked as well while we started incubation. I'll try to quickly sum up the outcome: No, we didn't get an official grant, but the RI is ALv2 and we actively asked the IBM devs/managers and they are perfectly fine with it. They even give

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

+1 This is almsot a worst case calculation. I too think that we will be able to cut down costs seriously as we do not need 10 servers anymore. E.g. we can share the OSX box with OpenOffice, the GIT repo will get cut down and the traffic is mostly offloaded to github. We might be able to

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

> Does Maven only host Apache owned plugins? Nope, don't mix up Apache Maven core with the 'Maven central' which is operated by Sonatype in conjunction with the Apache Maven PMC. It is more clear though with JFrog BinTray which is clearly owned by a company. Maven.central and Bintray both

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

zilla issue where I posted my patch. > > Considering how large NetBeans is I assume we will not have a short > incubation so there will be plenty of time to add committers. > > Pe sâmbătă, 24 septembrie 2016, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > a > scris: > >&

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Consider you did contribute 300 important patches to NetBeans over the years. Wouldn't it hurt your feelings that you are not enlisted on the initial committers list? But otoh the initial list of committers is not important for the ASF _if_ the PPMC makes a good job. Because if such a

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Please note that during the incubation people need to either show that they are eager to engage with the community. It's not that the Podling PMC (PPMC) randomly invites people just because their name get dropped, but the PPMC holds a VOTE based on their merit [1]. Usually all the initial

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

off. I really don't like to have a Hibernate jar file in an official ASF repo ;) Still figuring where to upload the git repo to :( LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 20 September 2016, 11:52, cowwoc <cow...@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: > > Mark Struberg-2 wrote >> Linu

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Status update from the import: du -hs .git 3.6G Could not import to github due to: Delta compression using up to 4 threads. Komprimiere Objekte: 100% (659268/659268), Fertig. remote: fatal: pack exceeds maximum allowed size fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly error: pack-objects died

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

btw, current import status: 230.000 / 303.000 Might probably be finished till tomorrow morning (CEST). LieGrue, strub > On Monday, 19 September 2016, 19:39, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Le 19/09/16 à 16:33, Mark Struberg a écrit : >> L

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

t; >>> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:04, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com >>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/19/16, 6:16 AM, "Mark Struberg" > <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID >>> <mailto:str

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

; Le 19/09/16 à 15:16, Mark Struberg a écrit : >> To be honest: I was a bit worried when the github import blew up. That was > actually the main reason why I started a local import. > Beside playing with the import tools for your own interest, I seriously > doubt that import

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

. To be honest: I was a bit worried when the github import blew up. That was actually the main reason why I started a local import. LieGrue, strub On Monday, 19 September 2016, 15:08, Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >On 19.09.2016 11:42 PM, Mark Struberg

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

n the NetBeans Wiki: > > http://wiki.netbeans.org/DevFaqAccessSourcesUsingMercurial > > Gj > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > wrote: > >> quick update. >> >> >> hg cloned it locally and now batc

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

> On Sunday, 18 September 2016, 18:24, Mark Struberg > <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote: > > btw, I tried to import the netbeans-core repo from hg into github and it > > failed. > Now trying to manually import it... > > Did anybody else

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

btw, I tried to import the netbeans-core repo from hg into github and it failed. Now trying to manually import it... Did anybody else do that? LieGrue, strub > On Sunday, 18 September 2016, 18:22, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: > > +1 > > >> -Original

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

If we have a proper maven build and set up a Jenkins nightly build, then we have the same from repository.a.o. We do this for many projects already. LieGrue, strub > On Sunday, 18 September 2016, 9:39, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > AGES ago (~2002), I was running a project

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

That goes into a direction I was about to ask anyway, the development model: Is it CTR (commit-then-review) or RTC (review-then-commit). Means do committers directly push to the cannonical repo master branch and before doing a release there is a manual stabilisation phase? Or do you only

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Good point: The ASF (actually the single PMCs of the ASF) do handle trademark rules pretty strictly: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ The main reason is that we a.) need to defend the marks, otherwise they vanish and could be (ab-)used by anyone b.) as a non-for-profit organisation

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Yes, but that mails usually need to be manually moderated through (spam prevention). LieGrue, strub > On Wednesday, 14 September 2016, 15:51, Wade Chandler > wrote: > >> >> On Sep 14, 2016, at 09:38, Wade Chandler > wrote: >> >>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Just an idea for the binary distribution question (probably a crazy one): We could distribute those plugins to maven.central and simply maintain a list of plugins with the GAV coordinates in the core project. Ofc we would need to talk with Maven folks about that idea first. And also

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

mber of the infra PMC as >> a mentor or PPMC member (whatever fits best) so as to have a liaison >> that knows what is possible to provide and what routes to take?... > > That's a good idea, we are open to your suggestions, I think an infra > mentor makes absolute sense here.

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Jim is always good to have on board. Unbeatable expertise and he knows how to deal with the good, the bad and the ugly of Oracle on a big scale as well. LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 13 September 2016, 14:25, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 13,

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Regarding GPL licensed plugins: I guess there will be a need for 2 plugin repos. One 'core' for plugins which are ALv2, another one for the rest. Similar to what we had with apacheextras. Of course this gets much tougher for parts Oracle cannot re-license under ALv2 but are needed by the core.

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

If you need an additional Mentor with a slight Infra background then feel free to sign me up. LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 13 September 2016, 9:40, Geertjan Wielenga > wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > Attached to this message is a proposed new project -

Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

s E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID] >> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 03:19 >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Ease of r

Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

Good links. I’d like to add some information for projects who use GIT with maven: First and important: configure the maven-release-plugin to operate ‚locally‘ https://github.com/apache/deltaspike/blob/master/pom.xml#L123 The important parts are false true This will configure maven to NOT

Re: [VOTE] OpenAZ retirement

+1 (binding) txs and LieGrue, strub On Tuesday, 16 August 2016, 9:23, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > >On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> ...Per http://incubator.apache.org/guides/retirement.html, I'm starting a >>

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

kind of lifecycle/activity > issue >>>> and avoid to create inconsistent (user) communities but I have to admit > I >>>> don't have a good view of the incubator freedom we can have on that > area. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rom

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

ache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Huge -1 to CMS, we want to move away from it as I understand. >>> >>> This is the last diff of yours that I can find: >>> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/August2016?action=diff=89=90 >>> >>> John &g

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - August 2016

John, others. Would you please also add in the BatchEE amendments I did today. The feedback mechanism is great but we could improve this by also sending a mail to the respective podling if you have feedback. That way we could fix left-overs and missed paragraphs much easier. txs and LieGrue,

Re: [DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

Another possible option would be to move it to our CMS. That would bring us SVN for the people who prefer vi, but also a graphical UI for editing. And it would make people make familiar with our CMS. Wdyt? LieGrue, strub > On Monday, 8 August 2016, 9:28, Mark Struberg <

[DISCUSS] move the Incubator Report section to SVN or GIT?

Hi! Just now it happened again that we seems to have lost changes on the Reports I'm pretty confident I made. Point is: we use SVN for our TLP reports since forever. Why do we still fiddle around with that weird Wiki for the incubator board reports? What is necessary to move the incubator

Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of "August2016" by Franck Cuny

2. Continue to build the developer community. >> - 3. Create an ASF release. >> - >> - Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC) or ASF Board wish/need to be >> - aware of? >> - >> - N/A >> - >> - How has the community developed since the last report

  1   2   3   4   >