In case anyone asks, I updated the licenses page
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas to start using the new cla-corporate.pdf
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.pdf instead of the old
cla-corporate.txt.
The pdf version should be much easier to use and does not require users to
refor
Hi Josh,
Thanks a lot for reviewing the RC and providing many useful comments.
I just have uploaded our KEY file to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/ratis/KEYS
For the other issues, definitely will fix them in a later release.
Tsz-Wo
On 5/9/17, 8:26 AM, "Josh Elser" wro
Craig,
If you have a case to site, it may make it easier to follow how it would be
different.
One area where I do see consistent confusion on are the votes that count.
I personally want to see a more fluid vote policy, but it should be clearer
which votes were cast and which votes are binding.
A
Craig,
You seem to imply that things used to be done differently. If so, can
you point to process documents or example threads of how things were
done differently in the past.
Are you proposing merely a change in terminology, or a change in
process? The two "votes" are very real, since they have
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Craig Russell wrote:
> I've seen a few (recent) incubator votes that imply that there are two
> separate, distinct votes:
> one in the podling and one in the incubator general. And lots of questions
> about binding votes
> and carried-over votes and whose votes a
In that case, I oppose this change. I believe the status quo is just as
clear as this new proposal.
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Craig Russell wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Good questions.
>
> > On May 9, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Jim Apple wrote:
> >
> > If PPMC members A, B, and C, who are not IPMC membe
Hi Jim,
Good questions.
> On May 9, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Jim Apple wrote:
>
> If PPMC members A, B, and C, who are not IPMC members, vote +1 on a
> release, and then the second phase starts, acquires three +1 IPMC votes,
> but A, B, and C change their votes to -1, does the release pass?
Binding
I think that would be a good way to clear up some of the confusion. +1
> On May 9, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Craig Russell wrote:
>
> I've seen a few (recent) incubator votes that imply that there are two
> separate, distinct votes: one in the podling and one in the incubator
> general. And lots of q
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Jim Apple wrote:
> If PPMC members A, B, and C, who are not IPMC members, vote +1 on a
> release, and then the second phase starts, acquires three +1 IPMC votes,
> but A, B, and C change their votes to -1, does the release pass?
>
>
Independent of binding or non-b
If PPMC members A, B, and C, who are not IPMC members, vote +1 on a
release, and then the second phase starts, acquires three +1 IPMC votes,
but A, B, and C change their votes to -1, does the release pass?
Hoe long must the first phase last? How long may it last?
If in the first phase, the vote i
I've seen a few (recent) incubator votes that imply that there are two
separate, distinct votes: one in the podling and one in the incubator general.
And lots of questions about binding votes and carried-over votes and whose
votes are counted.
I'd like to suggest:
There is one vote for a podli
On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 6:26 PM Henri Yandell wrote:
> +1. Sounds like it's passed time to discuss graduation.
>
> There's no such thing as a perfect release, and the measure of a community
> is not its ability to make a perfect release, but its ability to deal with,
> and learn from, a release is
+1 to that
The community has proven the ability to run the project in the Apache way
and has been very open and responsive to resolve issues raised from IPMC.
- Henry
On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 3:26 PM Henri Yandell wrote:
> +1. Sounds like it's passed time to discuss graduation.
>
> There's no suc
NOTE: Jakob Homan is an IPMC member, and +1'd the release during the
Airflow community vote. Thanks!
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Chris Riccomini
wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> The vote has passed after 72+ hours.
>
> There were two +1 votes:
>
> Josh Elser, John D. Ament
>
> No 0/-1 votes. I'm goin
Just to close the loop, we had a +1 during the Airflow community vote from
Jakob Homan, who is an IPMC member:
https://home.apache.org/phonebook.html?uid=jghoman
I'm going to proceed with the release.
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Chris Riccomini
wrote:
> > Were there mentor +1 votes on the
Disregard. I just saw your question about carrying over IPMC votes. Yes, they
can be carried over. Just make sure you include them/state that in the result
email.
-Taylor
> On May 9, 2017, at 1:18 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Unless I’m missing something, you’re one vote shy
> Were there mentor +1 votes on the dev@ vote thread that can be carried
over?
Yes, Jakob Homan's vote can be carried over, I believe.
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:18 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Unless I’m missing something, you’re one vote shy of the requirement of
> having 3 IPMC
Hi Chris,
Unless I’m missing something, you’re one vote shy of the requirement of having
3 IPMC +1 votes [1].
Were there mentor +1 votes on the dev@ vote thread that can be carried over?
-Taylor
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
> On May 9, 2017, at
Jakob Homan already +1'd the release as part of the Airflow community vote.
Does that count towards the IPMC vote, or does he have to +1 it again?
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Chris Riccomini
wrote:
> Argh, forgot that we need three votes for incubator release. Can someone
> else please +1 t
Argh, forgot that we need three votes for incubator release. Can someone
else please +1 this?
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 2:08 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> +1, however there's a few issues with the LICENSE file:
>
> - Would be good to list out the locations of each file (or path to a group
> of files)
Hey all,
The vote has passed after 72+ hours.
There were two +1 votes:
Josh Elser, John D. Ament
No 0/-1 votes. I'm going to wrap up the release.
@John, thanks for the feedback. We'll take this into account on the next
release. Some items have actually already been fixed, just not
cherry-pic
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Jitendra Pandey
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On 5/9/17, 8:50 AM, "Jakob Homan" wrote:
>
> +1 (binding) brought forward from the podling vote.
>
> -Jakob
>
> On 9 May 2017 at 08:26, Josh Elser wrote:
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> >
+1 (binding)
On 5/9/17, 8:50 AM, "Jakob Homan" wrote:
+1 (binding) brought forward from the podling vote.
-Jakob
On 9 May 2017 at 08:26, Josh Elser wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> * sig/xsums OK
> * NOTICE ok, LICENSE is good enough (see below)
> * DISCLAIMER
+1 (binding) brought forward from the podling vote.
-Jakob
On 9 May 2017 at 08:26, Josh Elser wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> * sig/xsums OK
> * NOTICE ok, LICENSE is good enough (see below)
> * DISCLAIMER present
> * Incubating is in artifact name
> * Can build from source and could run tests
>
> * A
+1 (binding)
* sig/xsums OK
* NOTICE ok, LICENSE is good enough (see below)
* DISCLAIMER present
* Incubating is in artifact name
* Can build from source and could run tests
* All of your additions to LICENSE (over "stock") are unnecessary. The
trap you fell into is differentiating between what
25 matches
Mail list logo
