On 11/29/2011 7:50 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
So, you are saying option 2 is a reasonable choice, given that only the
NOTICE/LICENSE files have changed one line here and there ?
Yes, if you let the 72 hour vote run through with a clear message that
it will be rerolled with a short vote.
If every
So, you are saying option 2 is a reasonable choice, given that only the
NOTICE/LICENSE files have changed one line here and there ?
Thanks,
Neha
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 7:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkh
On 11/29/2011 7:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen a poi
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen a point to 2) to running serial votes. You need only 3
On Nov 29, 2011, at 20:04, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> In my view, it's appropriate to run the votes in parallel if the RM has good
> reason to believe that the vote will pass.
Presumably nobody would waste anybody's time calling for a vote when they have
reason to believe it wouldn't pass, would
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:49:03PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
> > We would like to know if it is OK to either -
> >
> > 1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
> > 2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
> >
> > What we would like to know is if any
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The context for this is the discussion here -
> http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
>
> This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
>
> We would like to know if it is OK to e
On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb wrote:
>> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
>> not do so and re-roll?
>
> I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
>
> There's no such thing as a perf
On 29 November 2011 18:34, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> No committee can take action without a majority on that committee
> approving the action. The VP might take action by fiat (they are
> given that authority) - I can't imagine that would ever happen
> except in consultation with legal-private
Hi!
JBoss, The Apache MyFaces CODI team and CDISource would like to propose the
Apache DeltaSpike project to the Incubator.
We have added the initial proposal to the Wiki[1] and its content is also
included
below for convenience.
There are already a few people who expressed interest in contribu
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 29, 2011 10:10 PM, "Robert Burrell Donkin" <
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
> > On 11/29/2011 2:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I've bee
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb wrote:
> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
> not do so and re-roll?
I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
There's no such thing as a perfect release (all non-trivial software
has errors), so unless t
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 2:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've been wondering whether F2F meetups (bootcamps) for the incubator
>> might be a way forward
>
>
> Every retreat I've attended - which translates to those in Wicklow -
> ha
Hi,
The context for this is the discussion here -
http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
On 11/29/2011 2:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
I've been wondering whether F2F meetups (bootcamps) for the incubator
might be a way forward
Every retreat I've attended - which translates to those in Wicklow -
has included some level of incubator orientation, and some participation
by a fe
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 9:52 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html was just recently revised by
>>> Roy Fielding (ASF Director and founding officer) based on some nonsense
>>> back-channel complaints, and might be w
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:38 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>> wrote:
>>>
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warran
>> One "shortcut" that can be taken when a /single file/ must be changed
(and as discussed on the list, that change already has consensus),
would be to roll the next candidate on a shorter 24 approval clock,
provided that everyone had full opportunity to review the candidate,
and that rest of the p
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but the next release should fix that.
This is one of th
On 11/29/2011 10:26 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebb wrote:
This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
This does seem odd.
This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
cannot be held back by any entity or block of committers
No committee can take action without a majority on that committee
approving the action. The VP might take action by fiat (they are
given that authority) - I can't imagine that would ever happen
except in consultation with legal-private@ for a legal issue raised
on private@ that impeded that relea
On 11/29/2011 9:52 AM, sebb wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html was just recently revised by
Roy Fielding (ASF Director and founding officer) based on some nonsense
back-channel complaints, and might be worth integrating into incubator
docs.
Would it not be better to integrate the
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>
>> ... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
>> about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 re
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
To users no, to redistributors yes.
Section 4 of ALv2 makes the "attribution notices contained within" the
NOTICE file mandatory for any downstream distribution. Interpre
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
>
> Are there any consequences for the ASF?
Depends but potentially in some cases, yes.
Robert
-
To unsub
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>
> ... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
> about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
>
> It think it *is* a requirement, according to
> http:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
> release, but the next release should fix that.
Agreed.
For some background: Keeping the NOTICE file as lean as possible
(given constraints from upstream li
On 29 November 2011 16:37, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>
> ... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
> about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
>
> It think it *is* a requirement, according to
> http://apac
On 29 November 2011 16:26, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebb wrote:
>> This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
>> This does seem odd.
>
> This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
> cannot be held back by any entity or block
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement, according to
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice which specifically refers
to *re
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebb wrote:
> This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
> This does seem odd.
This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
cannot be held back by any entity or block of committers.
Martijn
As a heads up to the IPMC we wanted to announce that we just started a release
vote[1] on the ace-dev mailing list about ACE 0.8.1-incubator. This release
basically fixes a few issues that came up while running our community
graduation vote [2]. As soon as the vote has been closed, we will call
On 28 November 2011 19:22, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Nov 28, 2011 7:01 PM, "Neha Narkhede" wrote:
>>
>> >> That is because, every single time, the RM agreed that the release
>> was worth re-cutting.
>>
>> We have been assuming that i
On 28 November 2011 21:17, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback, I still have some questions.
>>
>> 1. Alan, this nunit license acknowledgement is missing from the NOTICE file
>> since RC1 and RC1 had the nunit files. Since cutti
On 28 November 2011 19:21, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 1:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
That is because, every single time, the RM agreed that the release
was worth re-cutting.
>>
>>
>> We have been assuming that it is the rule of Apache to cut another RC even
>> if it g
+1 (binding)
Tommaso
2011/11/29 Eric Newton
> This is the first incubator release for Apache Accumulo, with the artifacts
> versioned as 1.3.5-incubating.
>
> VOTE:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00939.html
>
>
> RESULT:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/accum
+1 binding
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Eric Newton wrote:
> This is the first incubator release for Apache Accumulo, with the artifacts
> versioned as 1.3.5-incubating.
>
> VOTE:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00939.html
>
>
> RESULT:
>
> http://www.mail
+
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Eric Newton wrote:
> This is the first incubator release for Apache Accumulo, with the artifacts
> versioned as 1.3.5-incubating.
>
> VOTE:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00939.html
>
>
> RESULT:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.
There has been concerns expressed about accumulation of rules without
pruning. In that spirit, I'd like to find out whether the community
feels that dropping the rule would be better than revising it into
something workable.
The current check [1] is outdated (for example, www.nameprotect.com)
and
This is the first incubator release for Apache Accumulo, with the artifacts
versioned as 1.3.5-incubating.
VOTE:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00939.html
RESULT:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg01038.html
SVN source tag:
ht
On 29 November 2011 12:18, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> hopefully you will get the support you need on your dev list. However,
>> please do not hesitate to come back to this list if you need clarity. It
>> may take too many emails and you might
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> The Apache Geronimo project has received a contribution which updates a
> number of Geronimo dependencies and associated code updates.
>
> The code contributions have been attached to
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6217
>
Jun,
hopefully you will get the support you need on your dev list. However,
please do not hesitate to come back to this list if you need clarity. It
may take too many emails and you might need a thick skin, but we will help
in our strange way.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and
43 matches
Mail list logo
