[RESULT] [VOTE] Release apache-calcite-1.1.0-incubating

This vote passes with 3 +1s and no 0 or -1 votes: +1 Alan Gates (mentor) +1 Ted Dunning (mentor) +1 Justin Mclean Thanks everyone. We’ll now roll the release out to the mirrors. I will make sure that the issue that Justin raised is fixed in the next release. Julian -

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-calcite-1.1.0-incubating

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Minor issue is that the RC was not placed in the correct place [1] Can this > be done with the next release candidate? Yes, I will amend our release instructions to make sure that the RC is placed in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/

[PROPOSAL] Climate Model Diagnostic Analyzer

Hi Everyone, I am pleased to submit for consideration to the Apache Incubator the Climate Model Diagnostic Analyzer proposal. We are actively soliciting interested mentors in this project related to climate science and analytics and big data. Please find the wiki text of the proposal below and th

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > I think Ignite does not pose a problem here because it does not have any > GPL dependencies, optional or not. The only classes in question were the > Doug Lee's JSR 166 classes, which I think we already agreed belong to the > public doma

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html says, on the topic of GPL and > > similar: > > > > Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. However, if > > the co

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html says, on the topic of GPL and > similar: > > Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. However, if > the component is only needed for optional features, a project can > provi

Re: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

> On Mar 22, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > My preference would be to ask pTLP advocates "which public list" they want to > use. Creating a new public mailing list is an option, though the low > visibility of a new list makes such an option less than ideal and the usual > argument

Re: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

Considering the members-only nature of pTLP, it probably makes sense. John On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:40 PM Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Would moving this to members make this a members-only conversation? > > -Original Message- > From: Alan Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] > Sent: S

RE: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

Would moving this to members make this a members-only conversation? -Original Message- From: Alan Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 07:33 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok? I am very much

Re: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > My only concern is confusion over pTLP and incubator. That's a manageable > concern but this lost is so large I fear it might keep recurring. > > Just a word of caution, not an objection. I agree that this is a concern. I also

Re: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

I am very much in favor for provisional TLP's and direct-to-TLP's here at the Apache Software Foundation. With that said I am very much against the noise here on our incubator lists and wiki. We should really create a list in the wiki for this kind of endeavor. It really it should take place o

RE: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

My only concern is confusion over pTLP and incubator. That's a manageable concern but this lost is so large I fear it might keep recurring. Just a word of caution, not an objection. Sent from my Windows Phone From: jan i Sent: ‎3/‎22/‎2015

Re: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

On Sunday, March 22, 2015, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > In the recent discussions about provisional TLPs and direct-to-TLP > projects we're missing a public place where the proposals (board > resolutions etc) for such projects are discussed and worked on. > > Are people ok with using this

[POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

Hi, In the recent discussions about provisional TLPs and direct-to-TLP projects we're missing a public place where the proposals (board resolutions etc) for such projects are discussed and worked on. Are people ok with using this list and the Incubator wiki for those things? The Incubator PMC wo

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

Le 22/03/15 11:04, Jochen Theodorou a écrit : > Am 22.03.2015 00:09, schrieb Marvin Humphrey: > [...] >> Because "release candidate" and "RC" are specialized terms with >> precise meaning at Apache and because we make a strong legal >> distinction between "released" and "unreleased" code, this is >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

Le 22/03/15 00:09, Marvin Humphrey a écrit : > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan > wrote: > > We wanted to have community to play with the RC3 release for a bit until we > release the final 1.0 release in a week or two. > Because "release candidate" and "RC" are specialized terms

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

Am 22.03.2015 00:09, schrieb Marvin Humphrey: [...] Because "release candidate" and "RC" are specialized terms with precise meaning at Apache and because we make a strong legal distinction between "released" and "unreleased" code, this is extremely confusing. Having something named "RC" which is

"junior" Mentor request advice from "senior" Mentor.

Hi. Sorry could not resist the subject line, but fact is I need a good advice. I know our rulebook about including 3rd party libraries, but rules are open to interpretation, and since I am involved in the development I consider my opinion for biased. In Corinthia we depend on the following third

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 4:52 PM, David Jencks < david_jen...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > I thought the more-up-to-date version of the backport stuff was here: > http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/ > > Looks like there was no activity on this project since 2007. > david jencks > > On Mar 21,