Hi Craig,
John Gemingnani (john.gemign...@bitnine.net) is mapped to the github
address jrgemignani. If John isn't getting credit for his work: we need to
fix this immediately. Same with Eya (Eya is mapped to: eyab
eya.abdi...@bitnine.net). I don't understand how they are not mapped. John
and Eya h
Hi,
It looks like the project whimsy page shows some concerns highlighted below.
https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/age
> On Dec 17, 2021, at 10:28 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> Four more concerns:
>
> (1) Three of the PPMC members are not subscribed to the private mailing list.
>
Jasper Blue
Thank Craig.
> For the next release vote (both dev@ and general@ lists) please include a
> check list for folks to use to validate the release. A simple +1 doesn't
> really mean anything.
We will make clear the check rules with PPMC members and everyone else.
"Binding" is a specific term of
>
> > This problem with -LICENSE and NOTIC , do we need to remove the licenses
> > and notices of Category B and X?
Only licenses from software included in the source release need to be
> mentioned in LICENSE and NOTICE not all dependancies. This may make the
> LICENSE file different for the
HI,
> The connector is released to maven for the convenience of users. It is not
> a new version of Doris. It is base on Doris 0.15 release.
It may be based on 0.15 but would contain other bits of unreleased code right?
If so it needs to follow the normal release process. See [1], [2] and [3].
Hi,
> as Sebb mentioned, some PPMC members might have used an email that is not
> recognized by LDAP.
The extra subscribers are yourself and John Gemignani, who both are also
subscribed to the list.
> I already reached out to them and asked them to double check.
Currently Jasper Blues, Nick
> >> (1) Three of the PPMC members are not subscribed to the private mailing
> >> list.
> > All the PPMC members should now be subscribed to the private mailing list.
> This is still not the case.
I believe the only members that are not subscribed are removed from the
resolution due to their ina
Hi,
> This problem with -LICENSE and NOTIC , do we need to remove the licenses
> and notices of Category B and X?
Only licenses from software included in the source release need to be mentioned
in LICENSE and NOTICE not all dependancies. This may make the LICENSE file
different for the sou
Hi Justin,
Thank you for your feedback.
> Looking at this list there are several people who:
> a) Are not subscribed to the private list
We recently added two new members to our PPMC(Pieterjan De Potter and Nick
Sorrell). I believe they are subscribed to @private, but as Sebb mentioned,
some PP
Hi,
For the next release vote (both dev@ and general@ lists) please include a check
list for folks to use to validate the release. A simple +1 doesn't really mean
anything.
"Binding" is a specific term of art at Apache. For a podling release vote, it
means the voter is a member of the IPMC.
F
Hello Dave,
There are a few repos of HugeGraph at GitHub, it’s too loose and not easy to
manage. So the team decides to merge some of repos into [1],
```
1. https://github.com/hugegraph/hugegraph
2. https://github.com/hugegraph/hugegraph-computer
3. https://github.com/hugegraph/hugegraph-com
Hi. Justin
---LICENSE and NOTICE are not correct and include licenses that are not
Category A licenses. One;y code that is Category A can be included in a
source release and there should be no reason to mention any other Category
B or Category X software. The license and notice should represent wha
12 matches
Mail list logo
