Cos,
I believe you may also need commits@ list for all the commits
activities to the source repo.
- Henry
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> We have updated the proposal with the section of
> "Comparative analysis to relevant projects"
>
> which addresses the question
Hi David.
I believe it will be needing a usual place to publish releases and perhaps
some CI time-share on builds.apache.org, but I am sure the latter could be
addressed by using different resources if it seems to be an issue.
Regards,
Cos
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 03:50PM, David Nalley wrote:
>
We have updated the proposal with the section of
"Comparative analysis to relevant projects"
which addresses the questions expressed below.
Regards,
Cos
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:21PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> Hi Cos,
>
> Looks like a good start of the proposal.
>
> How would this project r
Lens has the functional test suite that includes cube ddls, queries, test
data, scripts etc that requires standard build and test infra.
On Sep 27, 2014 3:45 AM, "David Nalley" wrote:
> > currently employed by SoftwareAG. Raghavendra Singh from InMobi has built
> > the QA automation for Grill.
>
Thanks David makes sense to me and thank you for explaining
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:59 PM, "David Nalley" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
> wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Nalley
>> Reply-To
Thanks, Andy, and all who responded and volunteered (yay!).
I'm sure Shoaib will respond, but as I have been the main "maven and build
guy" on the project I guess I should also chip in. I'll try to find time to
respond properly to the excellent questions next week, in between my baby
duties. Some
On Sep 26, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Hendrik Dev wrote:
> we just renamed fleece to johnzon so maybe i can help:
>
> - Check for the new name: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/naming.html
> - We voted on the dev list for the new name
Still consensus building but will move to PPMC and dev votes in
Drill uses standard sorts of CI infrastructure.
Lens (was Grill) is something I don't know about and they are the ones who
might have something unusual.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> > currently employed by SoftwareAG. Raghavendra Singh from InMobi has built
> > the
Hi Julian,
we just renamed fleece to johnzon so maybe i can help:
- Check for the new name: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/naming.html
- We voted on the dev list for the new name
- Open a issue like this one to get approval from @trademark
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAM
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:34 AM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Cc: Shoaib Sufi
> Subject: Re: [Pro
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> I would like to propose Silk as an Apache Incubator project. The new
> proposal is added to https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SilkProposal and
> is duplicated below.
>
Hi Cos:
Are there any other resources that Ignite will likely need
> currently employed by SoftwareAG. Raghavendra Singh from InMobi has built
> the QA automation for Grill.
>
What kind of QA environment does Drill/Lens have currently? How much
do you expect to need going forward?
--David
-
To
We have discovered that we are unlikely to be able to trademark "Apache
Optiq", so we intend to change the name of the project to "Apache Calcite".
The PPMC likes the name, and a trademark search reveals no competing uses
of the name.
What are the next steps? Can someone who has been through the s
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> In a past discussion about by-laws, some folks were adamant that voting
> for new committer and PMC members be consensus votes so a single person
> can block the adding of a candidate.
>
> Do any projects use some form of majority voting for ne
On 26 September 2014 19:43, Noah Slater wrote:
> Another way of wording this would be: the CouchDB community feels that for
> non-technical decisions, a single -1 vote should never block a majority
> consensus. The idea being that if the reasons for the -1 vote were
> compelling enough, others wo
On 26 September 2014 19:23, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Just like Ross, the following constitutes my personal opinion
> (that has been formed over the years of maintaining complex
> code bases written "before my time"):
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> wrote:
> >
Another way of wording this would be: the CouchDB community feels that for
non-technical decisions, a single -1 vote should never block a majority
consensus. The idea being that if the reasons for the -1 vote were
compelling enough, others would change their position.
It happened recently on a PMC
Just like Ross, the following constitutes my personal opinion
(that has been formed over the years of maintaining complex
code bases written "before my time"):
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
wrote:
> OK. I will give you my personal opinion since you are seeking to d
OK. I will give you my personal opinion since you are seeking to drive
consensus...
I would say that if the code is of sufficient quality and relevance for the
project to want to accept it then contributors should be given commit rights.
The debate should really about whether they get PMC membe
Hi Ross,
Yes, I am asking here because of lack of consensus in the Flex project.
In this particular scenario the Flex TLP has received a donation from
non-committers. I know one of our mentors mentioned that he was given
committer rights to different project for bringing in a code base after
that
It really depends on the project. I don't think there are enough cases of code
coming into an existing project via SGA to be able to say "most projects". Fact
is most have never faced this issue. I could give you my personal opinion but
I'm pretty sure someone on this list would have a different
As the primary author of the CouchDB bylaws, I will weigh in here.
Agree with Ross on the discussion stuff. We actually codify this
attitude in our bylaws.
http://couchdb.apache.org/bylaws.html#decisions
Specifically, we (CouchDB) see voting as the failure mode of a
discussion (a useful one non-
Trying to build on Joes answer below
Given that the ASF is about consensus the vote for.at should be mostly
irrelevant. Nominations should have been thoroughly discussed before the vote
is called. The vote should be a formality required by the bylaws to demonstrate
consensus.
What I mean i
On 25/09/14 19:19, Suresh Marru wrote:
If you need a mentor, count me in.
I actively contribute to Apache Airavata, and will be happy to bring our
experiences from a similar journey. Infact Ross queried on airavata lists few
years ago about potential taverna move to airavata/apache(Ross mentio
Hey Alex
If during a new committer vote someone is giving a negative vote then the
reasoning should be included with that vote and a discussion can follow
around why the person was given the negative vote, this should all occur on
the private@ mailing list for that project. If there is hesitation a
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> In a past discussion about by-laws, some folks were adamant that voting
> for new committer and PMC members be consensus votes so a single person
> can block the adding of a candidate.
>
> Do any projects use some form of majority voting for n
26 matches
Mail list logo
