+1 (binding)
On 17.01.2017 07:18, Henry Saputra wrote:
+1 (binding)
Good luck!
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Hi Incubator folk,
I would like to call a vote for accepting "MXNet" for incubation in the
Apache Incubator.
The full proposal is available at this wiki
+1 (binding)
Good luck!
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Hi Incubator folk,
>
>I would like to call a vote for accepting "MXNet" for incubation in the
> Apache Incubator.
>
> The full proposal is available at this wiki link:
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/M
Copy of the proposal text:
MXNet: Apache Incubator Proposal
Abstract
MXNet is a Flexible and Efficient Library for Deep Learning
Proposal
MXNet is an open-source deep learning framework that allows you to define,
train, and deploy deep neural networks on a wide array of devices, from
cloud infr
Hi Incubator folk,
I would like to call a vote for accepting "MXNet" for incubation in the
Apache Incubator.
The full proposal is available at this wiki link:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MXNetProposal?action=recall&rev=19
I will reply to this email with a copy of the proposal.
MXN
Thank you for taking the time to check the artifact and vote.
> I didn't RAT check because I didn't have a rat.xml to use the script
> against and I wasn't sure how to create one.
bin/check-rat-report.py describes, on lines 28-30, how to run it,
including how to create rat.xml.
> Also the build
It's ok, let's concentrate on getting the reviews done and 3 required
binding votes from IPMC members.
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Chip Senkbeil
wrote:
> Can't tell if my other mail got through. Do I need to open a new thread to
> indicate that the vote stays open for more than 72 hours? O
Hello incubator PMCs,
The Apache Mnemonic community PPMCs and developers have voted and approved the
proposal to release Apache Mnemonic 0.4.0 (incubating).
Apache Mnemonic is an advanced hybrid memory storage oriented library, it's
proposed a non-volatile/durable Java object model and durable
Can't tell if my other mail got through. Do I need to open a new thread to
indicate that the vote stays open for more than 72 hours? Or is it okay to
make that statement here and keep this thread open?
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:19 AM Ian Dunlop wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wonder if it would be better
Not sure what was the decision to be made here, but +1 to all suggestions.
All of PPMC as podling owners makes sense to me as long as private@podling
is notified.
Great work!
On 16 Jan 2017 6:05 pm, "Sam Ruby" wrote:
> TL;DR: We need to decide, for each PPMC, who gets to update the PPMC list
TL;DR: We need to decide, for each PPMC, who gets to update the PPMC
list and where notifications to be sent on changes.
---
Background: we have a variety of tools that need access to PPMC member
lists, including but not limited to: gitbox, phonebook, ponymail,
roller, sonar, subversion, and
Hello,
I wonder if it would be better to say
"The vote is open for _at least_ 72 hours " (ie will not be closed until
at least 72 hours have passed)
rather than
"The vote is open for 72 hours " (ie will definitely be closed in 72
hours regardless of votes)
The first version means that you have
Bringing up my +1 from dev list.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Chip Senkbeil
wrote:
> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree
> (incubating) version 0.1.0.
>
> A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC.
>
> PPMC vote result thread:
> https://lists.apache
Hello,
+1
I checked:
MD5 sum
SHA1 sum
build
I didn't RAT check because I didn't have a rat.xml to use the script
against and I wasn't sure how to create one.
Note. Build passed but complained slightly:
cc1plus: warning: command line option ‘-Wstrict-prototypes’ is valid for
C/ObjC but not f
13 matches
Mail list logo
