On 11/20/15, 8:18 AM, "Roberta Marton" wrote:
>It looks like we have some copyright and licensing issue to resolved
>before
>completing our first release. So I am officially withdrawing our request
>for our first Apache Trafodion release. We will take a look at all the
>issues reported and sub
Mike Percy wrote on 11/20/15 1:55 PM:
> Is the ASF mail archive webapp OSS? I wonder how hard it would be to make a
> couple minor usability improvements.
Of course it is! It's just an httpd module, actually, which (in theory)
makes install/maintenance really simple, basically pointing it at a
di
Thanks for the links guys. Seems like the full rewrite is pretty ambitious
still needs quite a bit of work relative to making some small fixes to the
existing thing (whatever it is).
Mike
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 08:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Vote has been cancelled.
Regards,
Roberta
*From:* Roberta Marton [mailto:roberta.mar...@esgyn.com]
*Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2015 8:19 AM
*To:* 'general@incubator.apache.org'
*Subject:* RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating)
1.3.0-incubating (RC4)
It looks like we have
Thanks, could you send reply with modified subject prefixed with:
[CANCEL] [VOTE]
to indicate the voting has been cancelled?
Thanks,
Henry
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Roberta Marton
wrote:
> It looks like we have some copyright and licensing issue to resolved before
> completing our firs
On 11/20/2015 08:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Mike Percy wrote:
>> Is the ASF mail archive webapp OSS?...
>
> I don't know about the current one but AFAIK
> https://github.com/Humbedooh/ponymail is an (experimental so far)
> potential replacement for it.
A
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Mike Percy wrote:
> Is the ASF mail archive webapp OSS?...
I don't know about the current one but AFAIK
https://github.com/Humbedooh/ponymail is an (experimental so far)
potential replacement for it.
-Bertrand
Is the ASF mail archive webapp OSS? I wonder how hard it would be to make a
couple minor usability improvements.
Mike
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Gregory Chase wrote:
> Sorry all. It's user error. I was expecting most recent first :)
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Bertrand Delac
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Todd: as Ross notes, your three points about code reviews in a CTR project
> are quite valid, and match accepted engineering practices.
>
> What I haven't seen is an explanation why a committer must be treated the
> same as a drive-by. Both are
On 11/20/15, 8:23 AM, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
>However, RTC projects do not use a mix and that's the point of contention
>here, some people feel it is suboptimal (I'm one, but others disagree).
>The discussion is not whether CTR also uses RTC at points, I believe that
>is a given.
That's the key
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>> > Good point. I should add to my comments that even a CTR project uses RTC
>> for non-committers. And that a release vote mean
To me, binaries not released by the ASF should not be necessary to keep
in multiple repos so this is a project PMC decision.
On 11/20/2015 11:02 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
Probably a bad subject in the context of other things going on :).
Apache Brooklyn is faced with the tasks of migrating it
Hi,
To give some context on the objects in question..
There are 14 files in Brooklyn's history larger than 1Mb. Four of these are
larger than 20Mb. The largest is 57Mb(!). These files make for a
significant penalty when cloning the repository.
Of the fourteen large files, five were present in th
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
> > Good point. I should add to my comments that even a CTR project uses RTC
> for non-committers. And that a release vote means that at least three
> people have reviewed the code from (a
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea
wrote:
> The question was asked on general@ [1] many moons ago, but received no
> answer (the original thread [1] indicates the offenders). We'd like to use
> this occasion to split the git repo into multiple smaller once (more
> naturally tailore
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Good point. I should add to my comments that even a CTR project uses RTC for
> non-committers. And that a release vote means that at least three people have
> reviewed the code from (at least) an IP standpoint, if not from a code
> quality
Good point. I should add to my comments that even a CTR project uses RTC for
non-committers. And that a release vote means that at least three people have
reviewed the code from (at least) an IP standpoint, if not from a code quality
standpoint.
In other words, +1
However, RTC projects do not
It looks like we have some copyright and licensing issue to resolved before
completing our first release. So I am officially withdrawing our request
for our first Apache Trafodion release. We will take a look at all the
issues reported and submit a new package later.
Again, thanks for all your
Probably a bad subject in the context of other things going on :).
Apache Brooklyn is faced with the tasks of migrating it's repo(s) post
graduation and there are some very large *pre-incubation* artifacts in
the git repo that we would like removed.
The question was asked on general@ [1] many
+1 here too.
Most projects here fall somewhere in a spectrum between "do whatever
you want in a branch" and "don't release without having others approve
your work". Different projects put the point where CTR crosses over
to RTC at different points.
*shrug*
- Sam Ruby
P.S. Personally a fan of
Yes the resources have been created. We’ve been hard at work on creating the
web site and working on the codebase to get it imported asap.
Regards,
Serge…
> On 20 nov. 2015, at 15:42, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
>>
++1
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> ...httpd for example) uses RTC, CTR and Lazy Consensus
>> simultaneously and works like a dream
>
> Indeed - those are different tools that each have their own purpo
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> ...I will continue with the bootstrap process to bring Unomi into Apache
> incubator
Unless I missed something I haven't seen more news about this here,
but it looks like the Unomi lists have been created and discussions
are n
On Friday, November 20, 2015, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Generally pretty nice.
>
> This is clearly based on a Jekyll example from somewhere. That does raise
> the question Julian had about license.
>
>
Jekyll has the option to generate a basic site, and the style is mostly
based on how Zepplin did th
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...httpd for example) uses RTC, CTR and Lazy Consensus
> simultaneously and works like a dream
Indeed - those are different tools that each have their own purpose.
They just need to be applied in the right places and at the right
time.
I’ll get right on creating one for Unomi, I’ve been wanting to use this since
you first told me about it Bertrand :)
cheers,
Serge…
> On 19 nov. 2015, at 20:33, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> FYI I have started an e
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> A combination approach seems like it would be the best to me. Is the process
> you guys use documented?
>
> As I said, the part that bothers me with the way RTC is done in the project I
> am involved in is that I can’t commit my own stuf
A combination approach seems like it would be the best to me. Is the process
you guys use documented?
As I said, the part that bothers me with the way RTC is done in the project I
am involved in is that I can’t commit my own stuff.
Ralph
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Lets recall that 'review' is not just about trust (or whether
or not it exists), it's also about this little thing called
*oversight*. It's to ensure that at least 3 people are
engaged enough to be able to not only vet the code/patch/whatever,
but to make sure that should the original patch provide
Generally pretty nice.
This is clearly based on a Jekyll example from somewhere. That does raise
the question Julian had about license.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Julian Hyde wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Luciano Resende
> wrote:
> >
> > The strawman of the template is avai
Hello,
We are happy to announce that TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating is ready for
release.
The release artifacts can be found at this location:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tinkerpop/3.1.0-incubating/
The source distribution is provided by:
apache-tinkerpop-3.1.0-incubating-sr
31 matches
Mail list logo
