Jakob,
I was curious about you statement about Kafka so I went and looked.
I only looked at the client code, but it appears that it is all under
org.apache.kafka.
Can you say more about what you meant by "Kafka has done fine without doing
so"?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Jakob Homan wrot
There is no reason to change the packages. Kafka has done fine
without doing so, as has been OpenNLP. There are no commercial or
vendor concerns. There is no legal requirement to do so. It's a
purely technical issue (how Java happens to organize code).
-jakob
On 7 August 2015 at 21:41, Nicla
By that notion, practically all incoming projects would be in non
org.apache namespaces, and that would be a different kind of detrimental
situation.
So, my(!) general recommendation has been; for any releases that maintain
100% compatibility, keep the namespace as before. But as soon as a major
(
On Aug 7, 2015 3:20 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase wrote:
> > Does "...based on Apache Hadoop" require a clear dependency notation as
to
> > which versions of Apache component releases are part of the commercial
> > distribution?
>
> No, it cannot
+1. Pig scripts are written by hand, mostly by data scientists with modest
software skills, so asking them to change all their scripts is both painful
and annoying with no real benefit.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Russell Jurney
wrote:
> Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespac
Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat,
and the change would be breaking.
On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
> matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Roman Shaposhnik sugg
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes <
matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic:
>
> For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.*
> namespace. This has been the naming convention s
Hi all,
Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic:
For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.*
namespace. This has been the naming convention since the DataFu project
started in 2010. Since DataFu became part of the Apache incubation
process
Roman,
That was a *really* long email.
Some general responses.
1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play at
all. Instead, there are two things that happen. The first is that the PMC
approves releases which defines each such release as an Apache release.
The second
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase wrote:
> Does "...based on Apache Hadoop" require a clear dependency notation as to
> which versions of Apache component releases are part of the commercial
> distribution?
No, it cannot. Trademark law is not a matter of such distinctions, and
our ve
Sorry Dave.
I saw (part of) the subject and saw lots of people saying +1.
It was my error for not noticing the other part of the subject line (the
part about Re:) and for not reading more than the first lines of your email
carefully.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Dave wrote:
> There is no
Below is a revised TLP resolution for Usergrid for review. I added to the
list our mentors Jim J and Jake F. I believe the list is complete now.
Also, I removed the below paragraph, which is unnecessary and only exists
because I copied some other project's resolution. We don't need special
Usergr
There is no VOTE in progress.
We voted to graduate on the Usergrid dev list, I forwarded the results of
the vote to this list and added a draft TLP resolution for review. As I
said when I forwarded the email, I will will call for an IPMC vote shortly.
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/gradu
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> However, please do not change the text of any VOTE (graduation, entry
> into incubation, release approval, anything...) while it is underway.
> That retroactively changes the meaning of votes already cast, which is
> problematic. There are
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Dave wrote:
> I don't think it is too late to add back anybody that I left out before we
> start the IPMC vote. What do you think?
It's not too late. The text of the resolution is a recommendation to
the Board, and the Board has the option to modify it before pa
On 08/07/2015 07:37 PM, Dave wrote:
> Daniel and Jake,
>
> I created the list in the resolution and I'm the one of left out some
> mentors. That my fault. I wrongly assumed that some mentors were just there
> to be mentors and had no intention of staying with the project. I did share
> the resolut
Daniel and Jake,
I created the list in the resolution and I'm the one of left out some
mentors. That my fault. I wrongly assumed that some mentors were just there
to be mentors and had no intention of staying with the project. I did share
the resolution before we started voting on the Usergrid dev
On 08/07/2015 06:44 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> I believe the reasoning is that some mentors want to move forward with the
> Usergrid TLP, while others were around to help with incubation only. Its
> been typical for a podling to not graduate with all mentors in toe.
>
> John
Right, but why was it
Hey John
Sorry, just getting back from vacation and catching up on email. That would
be fine and make sense if that had been part of the discussion on list
leading up to the vote, but from what I can see that did not occur. Can you
provide a link to the thread where that was decided please
-Jake
I believe the reasoning is that some mentors want to move forward with the
Usergrid TLP, while others were around to help with incubation only. Its
been typical for a podling to not graduate with all mentors in toe.
John
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:55 AM Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Why are certain men
Does "...based on Apache Hadoop" require a clear dependency notation as to
which versions of Apache component releases are part of the commercial
distribution?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > Bill,
> > So I can release
Why are certain mentors left out of this resolution while others are put
on the new PMC without any discussion anywhere about this?
I'd very much like an answer or a change to the resolution text.
With regards,
Daniel.
On 2015-08-07 17:19, Dave wrote:
The Usergrid podling has voted to proceed
Why not? So *everything * in your world is forbidden?
Join the world of freedom.
Am 07.08.2015 13:55 schrieb "Niclas Hedhman" :
> Bill,
> So I can release "Niclas Hadoop platform, based on Apache Hadoop" ?? I
> thought the discussion a few years ago was that this was misleading...
>
>
>
> On Fri,
The Usergrid podling has voted to proceed with graduation. Below is the
proposed TLP resolution for your review. I will be calling for an IPMC
gradation vote on this shortly.
Apache Usergrid top-level project resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
in
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Bill,
> So I can release "Niclas Hadoop platform, based on Apache Hadoop" ?? I
> thought the discussion a few years ago was that this was misleading...
Things in law are rarely binary except at the edges or after an actual
court ruling.
Rel
Bertrans,
yes, something like that. I think a simple page in the regular
documentation is good enough, which states the model items, whether fully
complies with it, and if not why that is the case. Start out to make it a
recommendation to all podlings to take a look and incorporate, thumbs up
for t
Bill,
So I can release "Niclas Hadoop platform, based on Apache Hadoop" ?? I
thought the discussion a few years ago was that this was misleading...
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > while ans
Am 07.08.2015 02:50, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
The assumption that you're making is a reasonable one: only PMC is
authorized to make work available (which will mean that everything
else is derived work). That said, I'd appreciate i
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
> artifact or only those that PMC actually care about?...
IMO any object/binary created from our source code has to be clearly
identified as not coming from the ASF.
If Kerm
29 matches
Mail list logo
