First few words should read "A disclaimer ..."
I blame a combo of jet lag and *really* slow net link. Not the guy who hit
send without proofing, of course.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> I disclaimer to clarify that the 0.9.0 release is neither an Apache
> top-level pr
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:08 AM, ant elder wrote:
> What i'd like to try is more similar to the pTLP approach previously
> talked about. So take some existing podling, eg Stratos and/or
> VXQuery, and give the PPMC binding votes. They have experienced and
> active mentors so there will be oversigh
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I still think that having a "Release Auditor" role provides backup for
> getting incubator releases out without having folks have to be on the IPMC
> to approve the legal aspects of a release. Just like any ASF Member can
> backup busy PMC Cha
If you release as an Apache Incubator project, the disclaimer is required.
If you release as your prior project, with prior infra and procedures, then
no.
Note: you cannot release as an Incubator project unless you use Apache
procedures.
Cheers,
-g
On Nov 14, 2013 11:49 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" wr
The Strom project is just entering the incubator. We have promised our
community that we will issue a stable 0.9.0 release prior to switching over to
the Apache release process. We are currently in a release candidate process.
Now that we are an Incubator project, but not yet releasing under the
Dear all,
Thank you for your supports. At least vote period passed, and we have
3 IPMC +1s. We will proceed with the release.
http://markmail.org/thread/njypqxvhlvwsnteb
Binding votes (3)
Henry Saputra (binding)
Jakob Homan (binding)
Olivier Lamy (binding)
- hyunsik
--
Thanks to those who did follow-up. That clears a bit.
Another plea from me to help you to clear the clutter:
I reviewed the mail archives for the outstanding ones
to see why the "Vote Monitor" did not detect their vote result.
I do not have time to correct them nor to tweak voter.py
but hope tha
+1 for Phoenix as well.
SQL access for HBase is a repeated thread in the community and while we
probably aren't at the point where there is a single answer for this - and
may never be - it would be nice to have a few "preferred options", so to
speak, with robust communities around them. Also, pe
Clean this up from the voting monitor.
This has been superseded by RC4 at the project level anyway...
Sorry for leaving it open for so long. (I may have forgotten it)
Ali
On 15 June 2013 23:24, Ali Lown wrote:
> The Wave community has voted on and approved the proposal to release
> Apache Wave
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Henry Saputra
> wrote:
>
> > It is indeed very specific for HBase use I suppose. Would it be more
> > beneficial to make it sub-project of HBase to get full community
> > support from HBase?
>
> The back
Patrick Reilly php.net> writes:
>
> Phoenix is a wonderful addition as sub-project of HBase and I use it
> everyday in production.
>
> +1 from me for sure.
>
> — Patrick
>
Sorry, I meant a top level project not a sub-project of HBase.
I apologize for the confusion.
— Patrick
---
Phoenix is a wonderful addition as sub-project of HBase and I use it
everyday in production.
+1 from me for sure.
— Patrick
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ge
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> It is indeed very specific for HBase use I suppose. Would it be more
> beneficial to make it sub-project of HBase to get full community
> support from HBase?
I'm on the HBase PMC and am enthusiastically +1 for incubation of Phoenix
to beco
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:43 PM, James Taylor wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We're pleased to share a draft ASF incubation proposal for Phoenix, a
> SQL layer over HBase, initially developed at Salesforce.com and
> subsequently open sourced on github
> (https://github.com/forcedotcom/phoenix). Instead of us
Thank you all guys for reviewing this release. We will move forward to
the next step.
Marvin,
Thank you for your comment and advice. Your comments are very helpful
for me to understand IPMC vote. Also, we will resolve IP audit before
the next release.
- hyunsik
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:46 AM,
Those sound like fine experiments to try - having a release auditor,
and a new podling with the PPMC have binding votes and initially
seeded just with IPMC members - however they aren't the experiments i
was thinking of.
What i'd like to try is more similar to the pTLP approach previously
talked a
16 matches
Mail list logo
