On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> 1. get rid of IPMC altogether and move to the pTLP model
> 2. make this a poddling issue: if a poddling fails to hunt down ALL
> the mentors for a sign-off -- reject its report
> 3. patch the current process with star
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Ryan Blue wrote:
> Given that there is confusion on this, I think we should decide whether it
> is required or not and update the docs to be more clear. Does that require a
> vote?
Although many consider it best practice for release tarballs to be tied back
to a
On 12/20/2014 04:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
...Releases are the tarball(s) prepared by the release manager, not a pointer
into the source control system
Agreed. I also agree with Brane about the pointer into source code
control
On 22.12.2014 17:42, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Thus, to me, the choice is really about #1 and #3. So perhaps, the
> path forward is to try #3 first and then, if things don't improve, go
> all the way to #1. Please let me know what do you think.
+1
>> Sure, we might reduce the number of projects c
> On 22 Dec 2014, at 11:29, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Aren't there loads and loads of presos, webinars, slides
> etc from various ApacheCons and other FOSS conf's which
> detailed the Apache Way?
These would be where? And, if we don’t already have a “place” for them
(including just a gallery
I am down with this, but would really rather allow reports that have less
than all of the mentors signing off to be accepted.
Right now, I am involved in mentoring a new podling and at least one other
of the mentors has done literally nothing. No email answers, no help
editing the proposal. No s
+1, this makes sense to me, Roman. For #3, please feel free to use
my apachestuff code: http://github.com/chrismattmann/apachestuff/
in particular, incubator_mentor_tally, the latest results of which are
here:
https://github.com/chrismattmann/apachestuff/blob/master/incubator-mentors-
tally.txt
+1
-- in reply to --
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 08:42
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
o
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
> off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before
> would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we're still limited
> by the foll
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before
would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we're still limited
by the following options wrt. resolving mentors AWOL issues:
1. get rid of
Aren't there loads and loads of presos, webinars, slides
etc from various ApacheCons and other FOSS conf's which
detailed the Apache Way?
> On Dec 22, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> What we *REALLY* want are projects
>> that
Hi,
I have some questions about Binary Convenience Packages:
1) In [1] it says: "the binary/bytecode package .. may only add
binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling that version of the
source code release”. An Apache Flex SDK source package has a build
script that downloads jars s
Agree with Upayavira. And, I think the mentors need to be more
diverse. Sometimes I can predict the result of vote.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> What we *REALLY* want are projects
>> that are interested more i
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> What we *REALLY* want are projects
> that are interested more in The Apache Way than in the
> Apache Brand.
What is "The Apache Way", anyway?
There's no coherent, authoritative definition -- and therefore,
transgressions are inevitable.
Pr
Hello
I am a very new participant in Apache and a member of the ppmc for apache
nifi (incubating).
So I thought it would be good to share that perspective for this
discussion...
In writing the NiFi proposal this section was honestly a bit awkward. The
other sections are largely about providing
I have always thought that there would be value in reviewing the topics
in our project proposals.
Ideally, we would review them to make sure all questions are open ended,
rather than having a clear expected answer:
Could we replace "Inexperience with Open Source" (which begs the answer,
"No, we h
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Sean Owen wrote:
> I was going to ask the same. I've seen ~5 proposals now, and was
> surprised to see how they all copied and pasted the same boilerplate
> to answer several points, including this stanza about risk of
> excessive fascination with the brand.
being
I was going to ask the same. I've seen ~5 proposals now, and was
surprised to see how they all copied and pasted the same boilerplate
to answer several points, including this stanza about risk of
excessive fascination with the brand.
I also suspect that there is excessive fascination, and that pay
I was wondering... What we *REALLY* want are projects
that are interested more in The Apache Way than in the
Apache Brand. We need to make it more clear, somehow,
that new projects want to enter the ASF because they
approve of, and want to follow, the *how* of creating
projects and communities. Lat
Interesting! but the https://github.com/nudles/singa returns 404. And it
looks like Parameter Server project is core.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Apache Wiki wrote:
> Dear Wiki user,
>
> You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Incubator Wiki"
> for change notification.
>
> T
The voting period has elapsed and the following votes were received:
+1 (binding):
Chip Childers (carried forward from vote on dev@brooklyn list)
Hadrian Zbarcea
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
+1 (non-binding):
none
-1:
none
With 3 positive binding votes and no negative votes, the release vote passes.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 5:14 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> ... is everyone OK if we mark
> podlings who don't have mentor sign off as monthly?...
I am ok with that - basically, a report without sign off is like a
missing report.
-Bertrand
---
22 matches
Mail list logo
