RE: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)

Yes, that's what I meant. I don't agree with the need (if 3 IPMC votes are available in the podling), just as the board is not notified of TLP votes. However, I do agree the policy is currently that the IPMC is notified. I have always notified the IPMC, and will continue to do so while the polic

Re: [DRAFT] August 2015 Board Report - Please Review

Hello John, Lens graduation vote passed as well. Can we include it in the report for "The board has motions for the following"? Thanks Amareshwari On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:00 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > I'd like to present the draft board report for additional community input. > We ha

Re: [DISCUSS] Apex Incubation Proposal

Roman, It is a single proposal. Ted and I talked at length on this. The main difference is the release frequency and need for Malhar to work off a stable release of Apex. The proposal is for a single community not two, and to share all the community aspects (emails, commiters, etc.) Thks, Amol

Re: [DISCUSS] Apex Incubation Proposal

I had some long talks with Amol on exactly this point when he was getting started with this proposal. At the current time, it appears that the developer communities for these two systems are indistinguishable. Moreover, neither project is actually much use without the other. Malhar requires Apex

Re: [DISCUSS] Apex Incubation Proposal

I'm confused about whether this is one proposal or two proposals rolled into one. On one hand it seems like Apex and Malhar are independent. On the other hand the proposal covers Apex in great details but not so much Malhar. As usual with ASF, the real question here is the community for the two. I

Re: apache package naming convention

For incubator projects, I strongly suggest renames unless there is a compelling counter argument. I think that many others would make similar suggestions, but doubt that there is explicit policy on this. On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Thank you all for the feedback.

Re: apache binary distributions

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > 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 actual

Re: apache binary distributions

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > Roman, > > > > That was a *really* long email. > > Well, I do those from time to time ;-) > > > 1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play > at > > all. I

Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence > process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general > thread. I'm trying really hard to avoid dragging Ripple into a wider Incubator discuss

RE: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)

Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general thread. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Marvin Humphrey Sent: ‎8/‎9/‎2015 5:55 PM

Re: apache binary distributions

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > Roman, > > That was a *really* long email. Well, I do those from time to time ;-) > 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 > appro

Re: apache binary distributions

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > 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 co

Re: apache package naming convention

Thank you all for the feedback. This is super helpful! One question that I still have is this: do we have a bias for suggesting package rename or any package name can remain in place? Thanks, Roman. On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > Hi, > > Jena graduated 2012 with old name

Re: Droids Podling Issue

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > FWIW: Droids has always been right there after NPanday for me > to be concerned about. This is not the isolated instance you're > seeing. The Incubator is basically holding Droids open out of deference to Thorsten and Richard, both of whom

Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:19 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Please don't get me wrong. I'm not about to shoot this release down. It's > an observation from trying to reconcile the releases in dist w/ the monthly > report list to ensure everything looks right (since I typically go against > the [RESU

Re: Droids Podling Issue

FWIW: Droids has always been right there after NPanday for me to be concerned about. This is not the isolated instance you're seeing. Thanks, Roman. On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:45 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > I'm very concerned with the droids podling. > > First, their website no longer work

Re: Are tests part of the release?

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > A tag should be buildable anytime. Snapshots can be dropped from repos so > from my understanding it is an issue even if less impacting than direct > binaries dependencies. To me the above is exactly the way to think about this issue: if

[DRAFT] August 2015 Board Report - Please Review

All, I'd like to present the draft board report for additional community input. We have reports expected from 19 podlings, 12 reported, 7 did not. Of the 7 that did not report, I left in the shepherd comments on 2 (myself and Justin Mclean) who had some additional insights on the welfare of the p

Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:07 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:37 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > Ross, > > > > It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread. > > > > 1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general > > asking for a 3rd I

Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:37 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Ross, > > It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread. > > 1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general > asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done. A > new vote thre

RE: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)

Your observations are correct. Though I disagree with the interpretation of policy (this was the topic of a recent thread on the general list). We have 4 IPMC votes. The summary is on the PPMC list where the project is managed. Feel free to cast a -1 and invoke the IPMC process machine. In the

Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)

Ross, It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread. 1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done. A new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list. The IP

Re: August 2015 Incubator report timeline

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 2:22 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Just want to check if anyone is picking up the remaining report content? > If not I'll do it tonight and send a draft. Please go ahead, John! And be sure to credit yourself: * Report Manager: John D. Ament Marvin Humphrey --

Re: Are tests part of the release?

On Aug 9, 2015 4:05 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > > Hi, > > > Are tests are part of the release? > > If they are included as source code in the released artefact yes :-) Well put. The Apache HTTP Server has several 'test' modules which are embedded in release tarballs. The 'test framework' is an

Re: August 2015 Incubator report timeline

Just want to check if anyone is picking up the remaining report content? If not I'll do it tonight and send a draft. On Jul 31, 2015 16:45, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote: > August 2015 Incubator report timeline: > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/August2015 > > Wed August 05 -- Podling report

Re: Are tests part of the release?

@john: no since it would likely be deleted and has no link with revisions so it is still highly mutable Le 9 août 2015 07:11, "John D. Ament" a écrit : > And if you're using a snapshot, just switch to the timestamp based > snapshot. > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote:

Re: Are tests part of the r patelease?

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:57 AM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Anatole Tresch wrote: > > Even for a jsr tests are not part of a release, except the ones that are > > part of the TCK. > > An Apache release consists of archived source code which is vetted and > voted by a

Re: Are tests part of the release?

And if you're using a snapshot, just switch to the timestamp based snapshot. On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:29 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > A tag should be buildable anytime. Snapshots can be dropped from repos so > from my understanding it is an issue even if less impacting than direct > binaries d

[DISCUSS] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator

Thanks Dave, and I'm recommending that we follow Marvin's advice. We should have renamed the subject of this to [DISCUSS] but that's a non-issue at this point. (renamed it myself) I'm curious about how, in general, the incubator feels about Usergrid graduating. Is anyone concerned with it? John

Droids Podling Issue

All, I'm very concerned with the droids podling. First, their website no longer works: http://incubator.apache.org/droids/ Second, Their ML archives indicate no activity for a year. There has been consistently 1 email on the list per month. Its generally about the board report, and a couple ab

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator

I removed that paragraph from the latest version of the TLP Resolution. It was a mistake; only there because I copied some other project's resolution. - Dave On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:50 AM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Pierre Smits > wrote: > > What is the reasoning

Re: Are tests part of the r patelease?

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Anatole Tresch wrote: > Even for a jsr tests are not part of a release, except the ones that are > part of the TCK. An Apache release consists of archived source code which is vetted and voted by a PMC. Anything bundled in the source archive is part of the release.

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > What is the reasoning behind the requirement to have the board of the ASF > task the PMC of the intended project to define a set of project bylaws that > couldn't have been established during incubation? > > What are the circumstances that requ

Re: Are tests part of the r patelease?

Le 9 août 2015 03:31, "Anatole Tresch" a écrit : > > Even for a jsr tests are not part of a release, except the ones that are > part of the TCK. Doesnt mean it is good or apache way ;) > In your case you may resolve/fix the snapshot dep to bind > to the specific snapshot version currently used..

Re: Are tests part of the release?

A tag should be buildable anytime. Snapshots can be dropped from repos so from my understanding it is an issue even if less impacting than direct binaries dependencies. Le 9 août 2015 02:05, "Justin Mclean" a écrit : > Hi, > > > Are tests are part of the release? > > If they are included as sourc

Re: Are tests part of the r patelease?

Even for a jsr tests are not part of a release, except the ones that are part of the TCK. In your case you may resolve/fix the snapshot dep to bind to the specific snapshot version currently used...? Jusr my 5 cents. Anatole Am 09.08.2015 11:05 schrieb "Justin Mclean" : > Hi, > > > Are tests are

Re: Are tests part of the release?

Hi, > Are tests are part of the release? If they are included as source code in the released artefact yes :-) > Background: We have (accidentally) a dependency to a snapshot version > for a library but only in maven scope. Up to the project I’d say, but I’d just raise a JIRA and fix it next r

Re: Are tests part of the release?

On 9 August 2015 at 10:43, Hendrik Dev wrote: > Are tests are part of the release? > It is not a mandatory part, the project defines the content of the release. I work with a.o. Corinthia, there we have some test cases that will not be released, but most will, for dependency reasons. Eventually

Are tests part of the release?

Are tests are part of the release? Background: We have (accidentally) a dependency to a snapshot version for a library but only in maven scope. Thanks Hendrik -- Hendrik Saly (salyh, hendrikdev22) @hendrikdev22 PGP: 0x22D7F6EC --

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator

Hi, What is the reasoning behind the requirement to have the board of the ASF task the PMC of the intended project to define a set of project bylaws that couldn't have been established during incubation? What are the circumstances that require this TLP (to be) to have a set of bylaws that are dif