Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC4]

+1 (non-binding) 2018-05-10 7:05 GMT+08:00 William Guo : > hi Guys, > > Please help us checking and voting. > Thanks a lot. > > > > -- > Thanks, > William > On behalf of Apache Griffin PPMC. > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Kasper Sørensen < > i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Omid 0.9.0.0 (incubating)

Hi, > Has the project taken YCSB notice file into account [1] and can you confirm > YCSB has taken MTBT notice file into account [2]. From a casual look (and I > could be mistaken) this doesn’t seem to be the case. BTW I don’t think this is a major issue and it can be fine in a later release i

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC4]

hi Guys, Please help us checking and voting. Thanks a lot. -- Thanks, William On behalf of Apache Griffin PPMC. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Kasper Sørensen < i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looks good to me! +1 > > 2018-05-05 18:39 GMT-07:00 Lionel Liu : > > > Copy my vote fro

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi Henri, Thank you for your kind words! Really appreciate you and Sebastian checking the release. Anirudh On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:52 AM, Hen wrote: > +1. > > Reviewed diff between 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 source releases for anything unusual. > Sampled new files in 1.2.0 for source headers. > Happy

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Omid 0.9.0.0 (incubating)

Hi, > Both MTBT and Omid took files from YCSB, therefore, I don’t understand why > we should take MTBT’s NOTICE file into account? Has the project taken YCSB notice file into account [1] and can you confirm YCSB has taken MTBT notice file into account [2]. From a casual look (and I could be mis

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Omid 0.9.0.0 (incubating)

Hi, Both MTBT and Omid took files from YCSB, therefore, I don’t understand why we should take MTBT’s NOTICE file into account? Thx, Ohad On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > @Justin - thanks for taking the time to review. Really appreciate it. > Looks > > li

Re: Publishing Maven artifacts under third-party coordinates (was: Set up Nexus staging profile for Dubbo ...)

Please note: my initial message was not to question the release process. Merely that Infra was asked to enable provision of artifacts within Maven Central under a groupId that is not "org.apache". At the moment, we cannot / will-not work on making that possible. Infra doesn't involve itself in comm

Re: Publishing Maven artifacts under third-party coordinates (was: Set up Nexus staging profile for Dubbo ...)

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:44 AM, Huxing Zhang wrote: >> ...The maven artifact is the most significant for most of the Dubbo >> users, so we want to include a maven artifact in the release > > Binaries are NOT part of Apache Releases,

Re: Publishing Maven artifacts under third-party coordinates (was: Set up Nexus staging profile for Dubbo ...)

Hi, >> ...The maven artifact is the most significant for most of the Dubbo >> users, so we want to include a maven artifact in the release > > Binaries are NOT part of Apache Releases, as mentioned earlier in this thread. Apache Dubbo is aware of that and it has been made clear on the dev li

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

+1. Reviewed diff between 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 source releases for anything unusual. Sampled new files in 1.2.0 for source headers. Happy to see the dmlc code folded into 3rd-party so it's clearer for users/reviewers. Good patient release-managering btw with all those side-issues on the vote thread re

Re: Publishing Maven artifacts under third-party coordinates (was: Set up Nexus staging profile for Dubbo ...)

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:44 AM, Huxing Zhang wrote: > ...The maven artifact is the most significant for most of the Dubbo > users, so we want to include a maven artifact in the release Binaries are NOT part of Apache Releases, as mentioned earlier in this thread. Dubbo mentors, I think we ne