Hi,
Been following the thread and noticed one of the items on the list is:
"Issue tracker clean for release version."
Is that really expected? I would expect progress and issue closed since
last release but not everything in the issue tracker addressed. Is it clear
what "clean" means in this con
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> So please instead of discussing again about procedures.
> Just discuss about the release :-)
>
> /me trying to rock the boat
Sirona has FIVE Mentors, plus another committer who is on the IPMC. Only two
of you have voted: you and Jean-Baptiste
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> We have a lot of pending votes and I see you guys discussing about
> rules why not spend your times on having a look at those votes...
If we succeed in changing the system so that my participation doesn't let AWOL
Mentors off the hook[1], deny
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:55 AM, ant elder wrote:
> All the stuff required to be checked when voting on a release should be
> documented in the ASF doc about releases. That its not in that doc suggests
> its not required. If someone thinks something is required then they should
> go get consensus
Enthusiastic +1 for Phoenix.
Thanks,
Eli
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> +1 from me; Phoenix is good for HBase and Apache is good for Phoenix, a
> virtuous cycle!
>
> On Thursday, December 5, 2013, Stack wrote:
>
> > Discussion of the Phoenix proposal has settled since i
So please instead of discussing again about procedures.
Just discuss about the release :-)
/me trying to rock the boat
On 7 December 2013 12:05, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:23 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to clarify with you. What you're saying is that a
>>
On 6 December 2013 20:55, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb wrote:
>> > On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <
>> mar...@rectangular.com> wr
On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> I am only comfortable allowing singular IPMC votes from members of the ASF.
>> I think the IPMC owes this much to the other members of the Foundation.
>
> I've now contemplated this condi
On Dec 6, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/votes/$PODLING/$RC
>>> ...
>>
>> Added to a new "us
My understanding is that incubating releases can have small IP loose
ends, but not that they can proceed before the main clearance of an
initial code donation.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Bernd Fondermann
> wrote:
>
>> That was also m
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Bernd Fondermann
wrote:
> That was also my understanding, that IP clearance is important, and
> neccessary for successful incubation, but incubator releases are orthogonal
> and therefore carry a disclaimer being not fully vetted Apache releases
> because of IP and
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Greets,
>
> I read in the Tajo report and I see on the dev list that the Tajo
> developers
> are now diligently tackling IP clearance:
>
> http://s.apache.org/00w
>
> In my view, IP clearance is only the remain work for graduation.
12 matches
Mail list logo
