Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > Moreover, modules under extdata are test only and are not used anywhere > in > > the project. They are used to test code deployment functionality. > > Perhaps it would be best to make it clearer that they are used for test > data o

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > While I agree that this is a general issue that should be discussed, an > example might help. This discussion started because the Geode PMC is > publishing a docker artifact from their nightly builds and then pointing > the general public to m

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: >> There is nothing preventing "clearly identifiable non-release artifacts >> available to the general public". Many projects make automated nightly >> builds availab

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > There is nothing preventing "clearly identifiable non-release artifacts > available to the general public". Many projects make automated nightly > builds available for example. > > The release polic

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > There is nothing preventing "clearly identifiable non-release artifacts > available to the general public". Many projects make automated nightly builds > available for example. This! Honestly this has always been my personal i

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

Hi, > I think the real problem is that many projects actually have different > binaries in their release which are needed for the project > (not only test data), and looking at our TLP projects nobody complains. In general most binary files are not an issue but jars, wars or other compiled files

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

Hi, > There's nothing wrong with having binary files in a source release, and > some just can't be generated. There’s no issue with .png, .gif, or .jog or the like that’s true, but in this case the files in question are the equivalent of a war file i.e. compiled code. Thanks, Justin ---

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On 6/23/15, 4:16 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: >On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Alex Harui wrote: >> Yep, that’s the “tax” of Apache. IMO, its main reason for existing is >>to >> make users of ASF projects feel comfortable incorporating our source >>into >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Hi! > > let me start by saying that I feel proud about the > rigor with which ASF approaches management > of the ultimate foundation deliverables: the source > releases put out by our communities. If you read our > policy document: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > Yep, that’s the “tax” of Apache. IMO, its main reason for existing is to > make users of ASF projects feel comfortable incorporating our source into > their projects because we’ve done our due diligence on the IP/legal stuff > on every line of

RE: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

There is nothing preventing "clearly identifiable non-release artifacts available to the general public". Many projects make automated nightly builds available for example. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnik Sent: ‎6/‎23

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:21 AM, David Nalley wrote: > So I see a bit of nuance here. > The project should not be promoting/advertising non-released artifacts > outside of it's own developer community (e.g. the folks who actually > develop Apache $foo) > > The developer, however, may want to show

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

On 23 June 2015 at 21:17, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 23.06.2015 21:14, Branko Čibej wrote: > > The fact that a file is binary, no matter what it's used for, can't be > > reason for holding back a release. > > Let me amend that: "as long as it doesn't affect the functionality of > the product in any

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > The distinction is between people who develop the Apache product, and > those who use the Apache product. Well, that's part of the reason behind me starting this thread: I think it is time for us to explicitly acknowledge a third role: an

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

On 23.06.2015 21:14, Branko Čibej wrote: > The fact that a file is binary, no matter what it's used for, can't be > reason for holding back a release. Let me amend that: "as long as it doesn't affect the functionality of the product in any way". -- Brane -

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

On 23.06.2015 17:26, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> Moreover, modules under extdata are test only and are not used anywhere in >> the project. They are used to test code deployment functionality. > Perhaps it would be best to make it clearer that they are used for test data > or better still gene

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

Hi, 2015-06-23 9:22 GMT-04:00 Alex Harui : > There was one attempt to try to do serious IP review on every > commit in order to avoid 72 hours at vote time. I’m not sure > what happened to that proposal. One related thread was http://markmail.org/message/jyicon7nkmfnf322 I never really followed

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:21 PM, David Nalley wrote: > ...Tomcat, for instance, pushed out 4 releases in the month > of May alone. It looks like they exceeded 20 releases in 2014. And > there are plenty of projects doing more releases than Tomcat... Yes. Grepping for "source-release.zip.sha1.*201

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

Hi, > Moreover, modules under extdata are test only and are not used anywhere in > the project. They are used to test code deployment functionality. Perhaps it would be best to make it clearer that they are used for test data or better still generate them. Can the files be generated from source?

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

> On Jun 23, 2015, at 6:11 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > Am 23.06.2015 07:16, schrieb Marvin Humphrey: > [...] >>> How am I supposed to invite all the downstream developers of the >>> world to start integrating with my awesome feature FOO before it >>> gets formally released when our policy ma

Re: June report prep

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > However, I'm trying to hold off on that conversation until the current > Chair > has actually performed all the tasks involved with the report and so groks > the > full scope. Hint hint. ;) > Hint accepted.

Re: June report prep

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > >> * Assign podlings who did not report a "monthly" attribute in > >> podlings.xml. > >> * Remove any expired "monthly" attributes. > >> * Run clutch.py. > >> * Assign shepherds. > >> * Generate the July report template and p

Re: June report prep

Great idea on taking notes. On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Marvin Humphrey < > mar...@rectangular.com> > >> wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On 6/23/15, 3:11 AM, "Jochen Theodorou" wrote: >Am 23.06.2015 07:16, schrieb Marvin Humphrey: >[...] >>> How am I supposed to invite all the downstream developers of the >>> world to start integrating with my awesome feature FOO before it >>> gets formally released when our policy makes stateme

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > Am 23.06.2015 07:16, schrieb Marvin Humphrey: > [...] >>> >>> How am I supposed to invite all the downstream developers of the >>> world to start integrating with my awesome feature FOO before it >>> gets formally released when our policy

[CANCELED] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Usergrid 1.0.2 (incubating) RC2

Canceling on behalf of the Usergrid podling. Thanks for noting these Justin. John On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:32 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry but it -1 binding until the font licenses had been sorted. > > I checked: > - signatures and hashes correct > - artefact has incubating in it’

Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

Am 23.06.2015 07:16, schrieb Marvin Humphrey: [...] How am I supposed to invite all the downstream developers of the world to start integrating with my awesome feature FOO before it gets formally released when our policy makes statement like: "If the general public is being instructed to download

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

Justin, You are right on binaries, however these 4 binaries are test only. Moreover, modules under extdata are test only and are not used anywhere in the project. They are used to test code deployment functionality. I agree that they should not be included in the source release, but the previous