I see some are trying to spread quite some FUD.
Pierre Smits
*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Sam Ruby
> wrote:
> >
> >> On
Thanks for all your feedback, we have updated the proposal with the
following :
- Renamed the project to Torii
- Added new mentors that volunteered during the discussion
Below is an updated proposal, which I will be calling for a vote shortly.
= Torii =
== Abstract ==
Torii provides application
Bump. I could still do with another vote from an IPMC member.
Thanks,
Ali
On 12 November 2015 at 16:02, Ali Lown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I could still do with someone else taking a look at these artifacts.
>
> Currently there is one +1 vote from Justin Mclean, and one +1 vote
> from Christian Grobm
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Much as I don’t care to participate in GPL projects I also don’t care to
> participate in pure RTC projects as both restrict me in ways I very much
> dislike,
>
>
You're entitled to that opinion. I personally don't care to participate in
CTR
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>
> Isn't it an issue of scalability? With pre-commit code reviews, typically
> the uploader of the code will pick out one or two people to review the code
> who know the area well. Or, if no one is picked by the submitter of the
> patch, the com
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
> And that goes, as always, to the question "Who makes the decision about the
> _right_ level of trust".
The community.
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-u
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 05:12PM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> RTC is regulation. That's not a synonym for control when it's
> conflated with suspicion of people. Regulation is a set of deliberate
> checks on a system.
>
> Good regulation estimates (or reacts to) a system's natural excesses,
> then attem
RTC is regulation. That's not a synonym for control when it's
conflated with suspicion of people. Regulation is a set of deliberate
checks on a system.
Good regulation estimates (or reacts to) a system's natural excesses,
then attempts to constrain existential threats. It isn't a lack of
trust, bu
If we use groovy as an example, a single contributor provided an SGA and
signed it himself. no other contributors signed the SGA.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM Alex Harui wrote:
> Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu.
>
> I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-ou
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> >
>> > Don't shut down trunk/master for product development.
>>
>> I don't believe you heard my point, but I'm not going to repeat it.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of the
> original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted. I've always
> assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base, even
> ones under AL,
+1 (binding)
— Hitesh
On Nov 24, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like to
> call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is
> pasted below and also available on the wiki at:
> https
+1 (binding)
— Hitesh
On Nov 24, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> Hi -
>
> The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been
> sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala
> to the ASF Incubator.
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on th
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> 1. What makes you think all bugs are caught during code reviews (they
> aren’t)?
>
They aren't. But some are. And catching them in code review is cheaper than
catching them when a user hits them.
Additionally, plenty of other things are caug
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > Don't shut down trunk/master for product development.
>
> I don't believe you heard my point, but I'm not going to repeat it.
>
I read your post several times, completely :-P ... I just
On Nov 25, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 1. What makes you think all bugs are caught during code reviews (they aren’t)?
I don’t, and I did not infer that.
> 2. What makes you think that code reviews after the commit are any less
> thorough than reviews required before the commit?
N
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Don't shut down trunk/master for product development.
I don't believe you heard my point, but I'm not going to repeat it.
Instead I will add a new point.
'trunk/master for product development' is not the only development
model available to a
And I challenge you to comb over all HBase mailing lists and JIRAs and find any
instance where we were not the model of a meritocratic and consensus driven
community, or any instance where a committer has ever been aggrieved by our
practices, and especially where I as chair have tried to exert c
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > Over the 17 years I've been around Apache, every single time I've seen
> > somebody attempt to justify something like RTC, it always goes back to
> > control. Always.
>
> Strongly disagr
1. What makes you think all bugs are caught during code reviews (they aren’t)?
2. What makes you think that code reviews after the commit are any less
thorough than reviews required before the commit?
If you don’t trust your community to do code reviews after you commit then
there is a problem i
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> That is pretty normal operation in both styles of workflow. My concern is
> with trunk/master.
As far as I know, that condition was unclear... You seemed
to imply that RTC *anyplace* was harmful or all about control.
Both CTR and RTC are pro
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Over the 17 years I've been around Apache, every single time I've seen
> somebody attempt to justify something like RTC, it always goes back to
> control. Always.
Strongly disagree. If you say 'every', all it takes is one counter
example to
If a review is required for non-code changes to the main branch, then I agree.
I’m sure you agree that reviews on code make for less bugs. We all make
mistakes and can overlook things. It seems kind of extreme to assume that this
kind of required review is all about control. Since anyone who can
That is pretty normal operation in both styles of workflow. My concern is
with trunk/master. Is a committer trusted enough to make changes directly?
If all meaningful changes (ie. changing APIs and algorithms, not just
fixing typos w/o review) are not trusted, and require review/permission,
then I
What about commit to feature/bug brach, review and then commit to main branch?
Is that CTR or RTC in your book?
On Nov 25, 2015, at 10:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I object to Lucene's path, too. A committer's judgement is not trusted
> enough to make a change without upload/review. They need per
I object to Lucene's path, too. A committer's judgement is not trusted
enough to make a change without upload/review. They need permission first
(again: to use your term; it works great).
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> Some setups that people call RTC are actually CTR in you
On Nov 25, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> AIUI, there’s two ways to go about RTC which is easier in Git:
>>
>
> That's not what Cos said. He said using Git does not lead to RTC.
>
> If RTC has been chosen, then you're right: Git makes it easier [than svn].
> But you've swapped cause/
Some setups that people call RTC are actually CTR in your nomenclature,
so we could be talking cross-purposes. That's all I'm trying to avoid.
E.g. Lucene - everything happens in JIRA first (upload patch, wait for
review), but once that has happened, you are free to commit away. So
strictly, it is
Boo hoo. Todd said it wasn't about control, and then a few days later said
he was forcing people into doing reviews. So yeah: in his case, it *is*
about control.
Over the 17 years I've been around Apache, every single time I've seen
somebody attempt to justify something like RTC, it always goes ba
On Nov 25, 2015, at 4:08 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> I don't think Git is particularly empowering RTC - there's nothing in it
that
> requires someone to look over one's shoulder.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Harbs wrote:
> AIUI, there’s two ways to go about RTC which is easier in Git:
>
I think this is a distraction. You said it best the other day: RTC implies
the need for "permission" before making a change to the codebase.
Committers are not trusted to make a judgement on whether a change should
be made.
CTR trusts committers to use their judgement. RTC distrusts committers, an
I have to completely disagree and find your assertion vaguely offensive.
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> and inherited the RTC ethic from our parent community. I did recently test
>> the state of cons
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Purtell
wrote:
>...
>
> and inherited the RTC ethic from our parent community. I did recently test
> the state of consensus on RTC vs CTR there and it still holds. I think this
> model makes sense for HBase, which is a mature (read: complex) code base
> tha
> On 22 Nov 2015, at 22:34, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>
> The major question here, for me, is: if the project is RTC, then why
> would I make an effort to become a committer if at the end of the day
> I'm still not trusted to know when to ask for review? It'd be less work
> to throw patches at the
Most of the Hadoop ecosystem uses RTC. I can't speak to other projects but
on the one I chair there's no conspiracy to exclude anyone.
I chair Bigtop. We recently tested a switch to CTR. It went very well and
so we just wrapped up a vote to make it the permanent state of affairs. I
think this is t
Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu.
I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of the
original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted. I've always
assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base, even
one
Community growth starts by talking with those interested in your
project. ApacheCon North America is coming, are you?
We are delighted to announce that the Call For Presentations (CFP) is
now open for ApacheCon North America. You can submit your proposed
sessions at
http://events.linuxfoundation.o
Very good point, but I’m not sure that CTR is that much less ambiguous.
It would be interesting to compare different models both that users consider
CTR as well as RTC. I have a feeling there is some overlap of “CTR” and “RTC”.
I’m pretty sure that a lot of folks call some CTR cases “RTC”. It’s
+1 (binding)
Doug
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> Hi -
>
> The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been
> sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala
> to the ASF Incubator.
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on that
+1 (binding)
Doug
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> +1 (binding) -C
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like
> to
> > call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the AS
Spoilsport ;-)
On 25 November 2015 at 16:47, Upayavira wrote:
> Not replying to this mail specifically, but to the thread in general...
>
> People keep using the terms RTC and CTR as if we all mean the same
> thing. Please don't. If you must use these terms, please define what you
> mean by them
Not replying to this mail specifically, but to the thread in general...
People keep using the terms RTC and CTR as if we all mean the same
thing. Please don't. If you must use these terms, please define what you
mean by them.
CTR is a less ambiguous term - I'd suggest we all assume that "commit"
+1 (binding) -C
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like to
> call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is
> pasted below and also available on the wiki at:
> https://wi
+1 (binding) -C
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> Hi -
>
> The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been
> sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala
> to the ASF Incubator.
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on that pro
[X] +1, accept Impala into the Incubator
(Binding)
Jarcec
> On Nov 24, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been
> sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala
> to the ASF Incu
Since the contributors were employed at Cloudera, they probably signed an
invention assignment. That means Cloudera can sign an SGA.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)"
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> Hi -
>
> The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been
> sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala
> to the ASF Incubator.
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on that proposal, which is o
+1 (non-binding)
Amol
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like
> to
> > call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like to
> call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is
> pasted below and also available on the wiki at:
> https://wiki.apache.org/inc
+1 (binding)
Rob
On 24/11/2015 19:32, "Todd Lipcon" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like
>to
>call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is
>pasted below and also available on the wiki at:
>https://wiki.apache.or
AIUI, there’s two ways to go about RTC which is easier in Git:
1) Working in feature/bug fix branches. Assuming RTC only applies to the main
branch, changes are done in separate branches where commits do not require
review. The feature/bug fix branch is then only merged back in after it had a
re
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Tom White wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Tom
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Henry Robinson
> wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's
> been
> > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our
+1 (non-binding)
Amol
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Tom White wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Tom
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Henry Robinson
> wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's
> been
> > sufficient opportunity for discussion
+1 (binding)
Tom
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Discussion on the [DISCUSS] thread seems to have wound down, so I'd like to
> call a VOTE on acceptance of Kudu into the ASF Incubator. The proposal is
> pasted below and also available on the wiki at:
> https://w
+1 (binding)
Tom
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> Hi -
>
> The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been
> sufficient opportunity for discussion around our proposal to bring Impala
> to the ASF Incubator.
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on that p
55 matches
Mail list logo
