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

2014-10-20 Thread Andy Seaborne
To: general@incubator.apache.org This VOTE passes with 13 +1 binding votes Suresh Marru Alan D. Cabrera jan I Ralph Goers Bertrand Delacretaz Andy Seaborne Suresh Srinivas Chris Mattmann Jean-Baptiste Onofré Jake Farrel Leif Hedstrom Jean-Louis Monteiro Roman Shaposhnik and no 0's or -1's

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

2014-10-20 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
On behalf of the Taverna community, thank you for all your support! On 20 October 2014 08:46, Andy Seaborne a...@apache.org wrote: To: general@incubator.apache.org This VOTE passes with 13 +1 binding votes Suresh Marru Alan D. Cabrera jan I Ralph Goers Bertrand Delacretaz Andy Seaborne

Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Alex Harui
Hi, I’m wondering whether modifications to the set of bundled jars in a convenience binary package can be made after release without voting. And if not, I’m looking for any other quick-fix ideas for the following scenario. Flex has many different release packages. One is an SDK called FlexJS

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Ted Dunning
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: I know we can’t go messing around with source packages without a vote, but what about binary packages? Is it against policy to do something like this, and if so, can exceptions be made? I may not have followed this quite

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Alex Harui
On 10/20/14, 4:13 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: I know we can’t go messing around with source packages without a vote, but what about binary packages? Is it against policy to do something like this, and if

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, 3) you created a correct distribution artifact and put it somewhere non-Apache The modified binary has been placed in his Apache account [1] and AFAIK he wants to move it to the official a.o/dist release area without a vote or alternatively distribute it directly from there (to avoid

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Ted Dunning
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: 4) you aren't claiming that the artifact you created is an Apache release and you are pointing some workshop participants at your release. My understanding is Alex does want to use this as an official release and

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Alex Harui
On 10/20/14, 4:57 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: 4) you aren't claiming that the artifact you created is an Apache release and you are pointing some workshop participants at your release. My

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Ted Dunning
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: If he wants to build his own installer, fine. If it says it is downloading an Apache artifact, it should be voted. The Installer has a DropDown list of releases, such as “Apache Flex SDK 4.13.0” and “Apache FlexJS 0.0.2”.

RE: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
Regardless of whether you can/can't do this (others are commentating, I won't add to that) - wouldn't it be easier to just build a release and call a vote. My guess is that you spent more than three days from identification of the problem to distribution and discussion here. Remember, if you

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Alex Harui
On 10/20/14, 5:54 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Why not just roll your own installer that has these additional options? Then this is the Acme Software Foundation installer and you can do what you like. I suppose we could, but it wouldn’t be easily found by folks who arrive at

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Alex Harui
Sorry, my last response crossed paths with this. We can and will make another release, but no, it was only 24 hours ago that we realized we might get a bump in installs from the talk on Tuesday and only 10 hours since I proved we could workaround the problem with a change to the binary package.

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.10.2014 06:34, Alex Harui wrote: What is the piece I’m missing that says we have to vote to update the binary package? Apparently the Flex community believes that convenience binaries need votes. They don't, but aside from that, if you guys are already voting on binary packages, it makes

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Ted Dunning
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Then this is the Acme Software Foundation installer and you can do what you like. I suppose we could, but it wouldn’t be easily found by folks who arrive at flex.a.o looking for FlexJS. They’ll probably end up using the

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Ted Dunning
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: So I am looking for reasons why we can/can’t update a binary package in less time than the whole vote + mirrors latency. I think you can. Just label it according to what it is. You can even link from the web site.

RE: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
Ok. Well remember that the release vote period is a guideline. If this is such a trivial change maybe it would be acceptable to use a shorter vote period. As long as you have three +1 (meaning three people have verified the release) you would be good to go, without long debates about policy

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Alex Harui
Let me see if I can tie all of the responses back into one thread. Thanks Ross, for confirming that vote periods can be shorter. However, there still isn’t enough time to get through vote + mirror latency before Tuesday in San Francisco. I think Ted just said I can update the binary package but

Re: Convenience Binary Policy

2014-10-20 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 21.10.2014 06:34, Alex Harui wrote: What is the piece I’m missing that says we have to vote to update the binary package? Apparently the Flex community believes that convenience binaries need votes. They don't, but