Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Aug 19, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Hm, sounds like sour grapes reappearing. Having the subversion community drop 10 years of common terminology and quickly adopt ours isn't what I consider part and parcel of incubation. I guess I have to say it again. I'm not suggesting th

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

- Original Message > From: Craig L Russell > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 6:45:54 PM > Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment) > > I wish we had completed this discussion while subversion was still in >incubation, while

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Oh, I totally understand what you're saying. And I respectfully and totally disagree with it on several levels. We can leave it at that, or you can propose a Resolution to the Board to enforce terminology whenever different communities want to communicate here at Apache. Should the Board pass suc

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: > I wish we had completed this discussion while subversion was still in > incubation, while the subversion community could learn the common Apache > terminology and have no need for translation of the terms. > > Instead, a suggestion to that

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > ** Community > > Since our last report, in May, we have added two more committers. > These are "partial" committers, meaning they are restricted to certain > portions of the tree. The first, artagnon, is a GSoC student for > Git(!) and

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

I wish we had completed this discussion while subversion was still in incubation, while the subversion community could learn the common Apache terminology and have no need for translation of the terms. Instead, a suggestion to that effect was brutally shot down. And since it's apparently not

Re: [VOTE] Apache Shiro graduation as TLP

The vote is now closed and succeeded with 11 binding +1 votes, one non-binding +1 vote and no negative or neutral votes. Binding votes: Chris A. Mattman Craig Russell Martijn Dashorst Gavin McDonald Emmanuel Lecharny Kevan Miller Joe Schaefer J. Daniel Kulp Alan Cabrera Niall Pemberton Noel Bergma

Re: [VOTE] Thrift 0.4.0 RC1

> On thrift-dev, we had 7 +1 votes, including 3 from active Thrift committers > (myself, Mark Slee, and David Reiss) and one from a mentor (Doug Cutting). The "myself" here refers to me, Bryan Duxbury. I assume you're not asking me if I'm voting +1 on the release in the general@ - I was under t

Re: [VOTE] experimental delegation of new committer votes to PPMC

+1 --kevan On Aug 18, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Now that the board has declared there are no legal > obstacles to what I have proposed, I'd like to > restart the vote. > > Thanks for your patience and consideration. > > > > - Original Message >> From: Joe Schaefer >> To

Re: [VOTE] Thrift 0.4.0 RC1

- Original Message > From: Bryan Duxbury > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 4:51:00 PM > Subject: [VOTE] Thrift 0.4.0 RC1 > On thrift-dev, we had 7 +1 votes, including 3 from active Thrift committers > (myself, Mark Slee, and David Reiss) and one from a me

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Didn't you just suggest that Greg summarily drop his use of local terminology from his reports, and don't you consider the Subversion report a community document, and therefore of educational value for the wider community, not just the pmc, in some sense? - Original Message > From: Craig

Re: [VOTE] experimental delegation of new committer votes to PPMC

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Now that the board has declared there are no legal > obstacles to what I have proposed, I'd like to > restart the vote. +1. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsu

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 16:20, Noel J. Bergman wrote: >> > So it allows them to seamlessly earn wider karma via RTC? >> Correct. > > So, it promotes CTR by the more experienced hands, and RTC by the less > experienced hands.  That does not seem like a bad thing. Yup. And to clarify: within their

[VOTE] Thrift 0.4.0 RC1

Hi all, In all the time it took for us to finally release Thrift 0.3, we've accumulated enough changes for Thrift 0.4! I propose we accept http://people.apache.org/~bryanduxbury/thrift-0.4.0-rc1.tar.gzas the official Thrift 0.4.0 r

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Craig L Russell wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:38:48 -0700: > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> As I said in my other post, by using *both* sets of terms in the >> report, the svn community also learns what the "formal" names are here >> at the ASF. They can see the translati

RE: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

> > So it allows them to seamlessly earn wider karma via RTC? > Correct. So, it promotes CTR by the more experienced hands, and RTC by the less experienced hands. That does not seem like a bad thing. --- Noel - To uns

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Hi Joe, Please read my messages again. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Craig On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Cmon Craig. Subversion is a 10-year old community. Making major changes in basic terminology isn't something that happens in a day. Craig L Russell Ar

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 14:56, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: > >> Actually, we don't use ACLs at all. We simply tell them "only commit >> in your designated area". We haven't ever had a problem with that >> approach. > > Even better.  :-)  Relies on human respect. > >> Even better: if

RE: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Joe Schaefer wrote: > I'm perfectly comfortable letting the board provide feedback to Greg > about its expectations for future Subversion reports, and see no need > for anyone else to insert their opinions on the subject in any more > than a limited and advisory basis. I'm still trying to figure

RE: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Greg Stein wrote: > Actually, we don't use ACLs at all. We simply tell them "only commit > in your designated area". We haven't ever had a problem with that > approach. Even better. :-) Relies on human respect. > Even better: if the committer gets a +1 on a patch from somebody with > "full" ac

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

- Original Message > From: Craig L Russell > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 2:38:48 PM > Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment) > > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > As I said in my other post, by u

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Greg Stein wrote: As I said in my other post, by using *both* sets of terms in the report, the svn community also learns what the "formal" names are here at the ASF. They can see the translation. So yeah. I'm doing exactly what you're asking: educating the communi

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:06, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >... >> The report is consumed by the svn community, too. They reviewed it and >> provided feedback. It uses terms from the svn community. >... > No way would the Board (nor you) allow arbitr

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:03, Ralph Goers wrote: >... > This seems really simple to me. If I move from Korea to the United States I'd > better start learning to speak English if I want to interact with the > population at large. If I just want to stay within my little Korean community > then I

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 13:29, Noel J. Bergman wrote: >... >> No way would the Board (nor you) allow arbitrary terminology across >> projects even if it is "parentheticals" (whatever that means). > > As far as I'm concerned, the participants are Committers.  There is no need > to distinguish betwe

RE: [VOTE] Apache Shiro graduation as TLP

+1 Good luck. Hope to see you adopted into Android! --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: >> Craig L Russell wrote: >>> I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you use >>> Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache community. >> The report is consumed by the svn community, too. They reviewed it and >

Re: [VOTE] experimental delegation of new committer votes to PPMC

On Aug 18, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Now that the board has declared there are no legal > obstacles to what I have proposed, I'd like to > restart the vote. > +1 -Matt > Thanks for your patience and consideration. > > > > - Original Message >> From: Joe Schaefer >>

Re: [VOTE] experimental delegation of new committer votes to PPMC

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Specifically, for thrift, sis, and esme, I wish to > remove the current rule that requires 3 votes from > IPMC members to approve a vote on a new committer, > effectively delegating the decision to the PPMC. > Additionally the pre-ack would b

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 14:03, Craig L Russell > wrote: >> I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you use >> Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache community. > > The report is consumed by the

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Aug 18, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > >> identifying the project with the ASF. Similarly on many occasions we have >> asked projects to pick a new name as part of the incubation process. We have >> made exceptions for well established brands (ServiceMix & ActiveMQ were the >> first

Re: [VOTE] experimental delegation of new committer votes to PPMC

+1 Carl. On 08/18/2010 07:31 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: +1 -- dims Sent from my iPhone On Aug 18, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Now that the board has declared there are no legal obstacles to what I have proposed, I'd like to restart the vote. Thanks for your patience and

Re: [VOTE] experimental delegation of new committer votes to PPMC

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Now that the board has declared there are no legal > obstacles to what I have proposed, I'd like to > restart the vote. > > Thanks for your patience and consideration. +1 Mike