On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> > Also, great job on writing this up. I have a few amendments,
> > which I will just put into email since I can’t do so on the
> > wiki:
>
> Man, this is annoying -- let me see what I can do. I really don't
> think I can take on this sis
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Hi Roman, I can’t seem to comment on the COMDEV wiki page.
>
> Also, great job on writing this up. I have a few amendments,
> which I will just put into email since I can’t do so on the
> wiki:
Man, this is annoying -- let me see what I can
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Roman,
> Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier;
>
> https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST
>
> should be
>
> https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI
Fixed! As a side note: I really need to figure out how to make
sure this is a r
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
> > Since the only official release is the source release, perhaps that's
> > the only place where we in fact need a policy?
>
> I would really encourage us to keep this for Mave
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Since the only official release is the source release, perhaps that's
> the only place where we in fact need a policy?
I would really encourage us to keep this for Maven. Especially for Maven
where you may have no clue about the status of
ATTENTION IPMC! If anybody is out there wants a low-stress Mentoring gig,
this is it. And if you're an "RDF neutral" outsider, you'll be helping
this project to achieve its goals, just by showing up.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> Right - I think it would be good
IIRC, that was discussed back in the days when Maven started to become
popular. And since ASF projects/podlings like to provide those convenience
artifacts, and that most Maven users never see the source tarballs, it was
concluded that those Maven artifacts needed the 'mark'.
//Niclas
On Wed, Feb
Since the only official release is the source release, perhaps that's
the only place where we in fact need a policy?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> wrote:
>
>> I think formally the requirement is just that there is
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> I think formally the requirement is just that there is "incubating"
> somewhere in the released downloadables, it doesn't have to be part of
> the version number
>
Originally it was a matter of the user can't avoid notice that the pro
I didn't read the documentation carefully enough to quote details, but it
appeared that the efficiency and asynchronous nature of the parameter
server is considered to be a key factor in scalability and performance.
The performance numbers that I read compared singa to H2O and showed a very
conside
> I think that, one of the big differences is that Singa is written in C++.
Awesome, I'd be the first client. And anything from architectural viewpoint?
--
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
-Original Message-
From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 201
Agree about the worry about breaking semantic versioning. OSGi-wise
for example this is a bit tricky, where you have to do
0.5.3.incubating instead to ensure "incubating" is a qualifier rather
than part of the 3.
But if the project is publishing Maven artifacts, then I believe it's
pretty clean i
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Edward J. Yoon
wrote:
> My coworker is working on implementing DNN on Apache Hama (which supports
> general-purpose BSP computing and Pregel-like graph framework). If Hama is
> leveraging InfiniBand and GPUs in the future, what will be the major
> difference bt Ha
Just out of curious.
My coworker is working on implementing DNN on Apache Hama (which supports
general-purpose BSP computing and Pregel-like graph framework). If Hama is
leveraging InfiniBand and GPUs in the future, what will be the major
difference bt Hama-based DistBelief clone and Singa project
Hi Incubator,
I'd like some context about the requirement of adding -incubating in the file
name of podling releases.
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven
It seems we require adding -incubating in the v
On 10 February 2015 at 20:31, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> I also think it would be OK for the project to decide it wants to become a
> TLP. Whether the project joins Commons or becomes its own TLP won't impact
> the number of people qualified to work on it. Some Apache TLPs are
> effectively in ma
Hi,
When reviewing the podling (as a shepherd) I at first allso though it odd,
however they have looked into what other projects are doing and are using RTC
not CTR. The discussion (as I understand it) is about accepting non committer
code not all code changes. This is the relevant thread [1]
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to
> become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
> discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes
> on a pTLP resolution
On 11 February 2015 at 07:31, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
>> The natural path to Apache Commons Sandbox has been studied, but we
>> think that in this phase of the project, which focuses on the API
>> design and actively involves the deve
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I
> disagree:
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but
> you'll
> > wan
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> The natural path to Apache Commons Sandbox has been studied, but we
> think that in this phase of the project, which focuses on the API
> design and actively involves the developers of existing toolkits, it
> is better to have a more f
For your convenience, here's the proposal text for CommonsRDF:
= Apache Commons RDF incubation proposal =
<>
== Status ==
Draft
== Abstract ==
Commons RDF is a set of interfaces for the RDF 1.1 concepts that can
be used to expose common RDF-1.1 concepts using common Java
interfaces.
== Propo
+1 to jan's comments
Ideally you should not be carrying out votes for code changes unless you
can't progress without it. In some Apache projects I've participated in I
don't think we've ever held a formal vote on code changes. It's fairly
common to informally use +1/0/-1 to expression opinions a
On 10 February 2015 at 11:44, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <
g...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can reply about SAMOA.
> We want to create bylaws because the default voting process for code
> changes in Apache is too strict for us (3 +1 binding votes).
> Being a small community, we felt that we
Hi,
I can reply about SAMOA.
We want to create bylaws because the default voting process for code
changes in Apache is too strict for us (3 +1 binding votes).
Being a small community, we felt that we needed a lower bar to move faster.
My understanding is that we need bylaws to specify that, but ma
I guess, if there is no single aspect to discuss, we can move forward
with an official vote, right?
On 05/02/15 08:49, Sergio Fernández wrote:
Hello everyone,
I would like to propose Commons RDF, a small library providing a common
API for RDF 1.1. The current draft of the proposal is here:
On 9 February 2015 at 21:59, John D. Ament wrote:
> I noticed that as well. I'm assuming it's in part because no one has
> access to the incubator JIRA.
>
How come ? of course you need a jira account, but incubator jira does not
seem to have specially closed permissions.
https://issues.apache.
Roman,
Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier;
https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST
should be
https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI
Niclas
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > O
[-board]
Roman,
I am also pleased to see your effort, and likewise comments/edits on page
are not available to me, so I post here...
I am wondering why there is anything about the committers at all?
"
1. All committers on the project are also subscribed to the private@ ML
of a pTLP
2. A
29 matches
Mail list logo
