+1 (binding) to the release.
Minor items (fix next release):
* R-package/ directory is empty (needs removing as confusing, or a README
could be added explaining the code is not present and can be found outside
of Apache).
* Agreed with Justin that there needs to be a Getting Started text file of
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:37 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:10 PM Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Just to be clear. The issue in this case (not to confuse this
> situation
> > > with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply.
> >
> > With a
+1
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Huxing Zhang wrote:
> +1 (Non-binding)
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:46 AM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:13 PM Von Gosling
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello IPMC,
> >>
> >> The recent DISCUSS thread in PPMC, IPMC and VOTE thread i
+1 (Non-binding)
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:46 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:13 PM Von Gosling wrote:
>
>> Hello IPMC,
>>
>> The recent DISCUSS thread in PPMC, IPMC and VOTE thread in Community on
>> the topic of Apache RocketMQ graduation have been opened for at l
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:10 PM Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Just to be clear. The issue in this case (not to confuse this situation
> > with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply.
>
> With a large number of files not having license headers and a mix of
> Apache, BS
Hi,
> Just to be clear. The issue in this case (not to confuse this situation
> with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply.
With a large number of files not having license headers and a mix of Apache,
BSD and MIT licenses it’s fairly similar IMO.
The 3rd party Apache l
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:15 PM Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:38 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
> >
+1
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:13 PM Von Gosling wrote:
> Hello IPMC,
>
> The recent DISCUSS thread in PPMC, IPMC and VOTE thread in Community on
> the topic of Apache RocketMQ graduation have been opened for at least 72
> hours, and I believe all questions have been answered and issues addressed
+1
We see a healthy and active community during podling. Expect our community
to build a better and stronger apache project after graduation.
Thanks,
Xin Wang
2017-08-30 10:13 GMT+08:00 Von Gosling :
> Hello IPMC,
>
> The recent DISCUSS thread in PPMC, IPMC and VOTE thread in Community on
> the
Hi,
Sorry the send button got pressed a bit too quickly there.
+1 (binding) but there a few outstanding things that need to be fixed IMO
before the next release.
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signature and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- NOTICE may have wrong year range (should only be 20
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:38 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> >> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on fil
Hello IPMC,
The recent DISCUSS thread in PPMC, IPMC and VOTE thread in Community on the
topic of Apache RocketMQ graduation have been opened for at least 72 hours, and
I believe all questions have been answered and issues addressed at this point.
With the discussion having settled down, I would
kacie karo
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
kacie karo
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
HI,
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signature and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- NOTICE may have wrong year range (should
While a number of file (around 50 odd) do have "Copyright (c) 2016 by
Contributors” they don’t have a full Apache licensed header please fix this in
the next release.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
>>
>>
> Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on file) we
> can't remove the copyright claim that already exists. Us receivi
Eric,
If you've been given access to gitbox, you should have access to github
issues. I just confirmed with infra you do have access, so you can use
them. They also believe your JIRA's already been disabled.
So basically, you wouldn't have been able to get here if you weren't
allowed to use the
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell wrote:
> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
>
>
Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on file) we can't
remove the copyright claim that already exists. Us receiving an ICLA is
what allows us to say "Licensed to the ASF" (it's i
Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 18:15 John D. Ament wrote:
> Ok, so here's my +1 to release, with the following notes:
>
> - The NOTICE file is wrong. Unless the dependencies listed have explicit
> notice requirements (they don't seem to) nothing needs to be added
Hi Incubator-
Are there any restrictions on the tooling a podling uses to track bugs?
The Traffic Control Podling has recently moved to the Github as master.
Prior to using Github as master we were using Jira, but the podling widely
favors Github Issues for a variety of reasons.
Is there any po
Thanks John. I will create the JIRA tickets to track your inputs as requested.
Meghna
> On Aug 29, 2017, at 6:14 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> Ok, so here's my +1 to release, with the following notes:
>
> - The NOTICE file is wrong. Unless the dependencies listed have explicit
> notice requi
Ok, so here's my +1 to release, with the following notes:
- The NOTICE file is wrong. Unless the dependencies listed have explicit
notice requirements (they don't seem to) nothing needs to be added to the
NOTICE file.
- The source headers should be reverted in any areas where not all
contributors
I believe all the major contributors were ICLA'd, and I disagree that all
contributors need to SGA/ICLA; we don't do that for an existing project.
We need to do the check to see how the footprint of contributions for the
largest contributor without an ICLA is (apologies for the horrible wording
th
Well, specific to what I'm seeing in MXNet's release, where I'm concerned
is that almost all of the files have the "Licensed to the ASF" header. If
there was an existing copyright on there before, that should remain,
regardless of whether the license is apache v2 or not, unless every single
contri
Hi Henri,
If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who contributed to the
project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as part of IP
Clearance.
It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0.
Are there any contributors to the project before
Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling release. Will
review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?). Code has
been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. A
Dominic,
One question, from looking a second time. Was MXNet always Apache Licensed
(prior to coming to the ASF)?
John
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
> Henri, Suneel,
Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and vote?
Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this project?
Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
Dom
On Tue, Aug 29, 201
Non pmc members can vote non-binding. Usually mentors review releases.
Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it? Due to there being no
SGA its a harder release to review. I also need to cross check ICLAs and
files that have changed license.
On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni"
Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the committers
for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on this
release?
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal
wrote:
> Hi All,
> This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 is
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
