ieve
they would be unpleasantly surprised.
Hen
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:49 AM 申远 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a PPMC member of Apache Weex. After serious reviewing of our
> dependencies, I found there some of the source code we copied from Webkit
> is actually under LGPL license(Categor
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:53 Justin Mclean
wrote:
> HI,
>
> > I think that serious = release blocker;
>
> That would also be my meaning. People / podlings have requested that
> release blockers be allowed in podling releases.
>
> > I'd love to hear some examples. I suspect they are all legal.
>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:15 Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 02:47 Alex Harui wrote:
>
> > Maybe the next question is: Are all release policy violations
> > showstoppers? I suspect the answer is no. And thus, if any TLP can punt
> > release policy violations to a future release,
>
>
-defined list, I doubt
> > anything could be confirmed. I'd go with: "Conceptually what you
> describe
> > could lead to a situation where a PPMC releases a project fully compliant
> > with the ASF's expectations. “
>
> I assume you mean “not fully compliant”?
>
Nope.
I was being defensive in my broad statements. For the given question; sure,
someone might manage a perfect release someday :)
Hen
iece of paper seems good :)
> Can the board also confirm that the ASF's legal shield would cover people
making releases under this proposal?
Are the board lawyers? :) Until you have a well-defined list, I doubt
anything could be confirmed. I'd go with: "Conceptually what you des
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:53 Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:22 PM Hen wrote:
> >...
>
> > * Incubating releases are Apache releases.
> >
>
> That is demonstrably not true, as (historically) the Incubator has made
> releases with GPL'd c
to confirm that the Apache Way was followed (and PPMCs need
chairs).
(and we need an entire conference to figure out binary releases)
Hen
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:10 AM Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
> I think the fact that incubating releases are not official ASF releases
> covers this issue. The
+1 to the release.
I compared to the previous release and shared, on dev@mxnet, a note
regarding licensing of datasets (not included in the release but linked
from a script). I've suggested that a note on the origin and license be
added.
Hen
On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 8:14 AM Junru Shao
+1.
I reviewed the diff with the RC2 that I approved, no concerns with anything
added.
Cc'ing other mentors.
Hen
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Piyush Ghai wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0, release
> candidate RC3.
Did you mean:
"The rat-exclude configuration on the project _must_ be less permissive."
?
(your text suggests it's an option, whereas your vote says it's required)
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 8:08 PM Luciano Resende
wrote:
> I ran RAT, and while I understand that a lot of the failures are
> comin
+1.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:59 PM Steffen Rochel
wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0, release
> candidate 2
>
> Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
>
> Vote thread:
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.ht
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:43 PM Hen wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:49 PM Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > 2. The PPMC should not publish software outside of Apache controlled
>> locations.
>>
>> I’m trying to find where th
packages are not an act of the PMC and therefore don't
have to obey our release policy, just our license and trademark policy - I
think that's nuts btw).
Hen
;s, but they must
> not
> > cause user confusion (i.e. respect trademarks).
>
> And we have this as well (see docker links).
>
> All a bit of a mess really.
>
> Justin
Agreed :)
I think PMCs are trying to do the right thing for the public and we need to
come up with structure for how PMCs should publish installables on 3p
locations.
Hen
>
re (including binaries) published by a
third party, but they should flag that it does not come from Apache and
should not treat it as the default user experience.
All of which means PPMCs must not use PyPI, NuGet, NPM, DockerHub, etc.
unless Infra actively support a mechanism of doing so (which they
definitely do for Maven).
(Though I'm confused as to whether #2 is a must not, should not, or can if
they wish to)
Hen
+1 to automatically carried forward which I suspect is how it’s been
handled up to now.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 4:15 AM sebb wrote:
> When a podling graduates, all the people listed on the board
> resolution become both PMC members and committers.
>
> What is the policy for podling committers?
>
+1.
I reviewed the diff between this release and the last.
Hen
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Anirudh wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.1, release
> candidate RC0.
>
> Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and ap
needs
updating to explain that most (or all?) projects use Consensus voting to
add committers (and presumably PMC members too).
On most projects using consensus voting for committers/pmc; it feels that
it's hard to tell the difference. If there are no -1s, a consensus and
majority vote look t
are the
same as for voting for a PMC member or a committer. Ideally there are no
-1s, but at the end of the day it’s a majority vote.
ie: I think newcommitter.html is buggy.
Thoughts?
Hen
+1 to a transfer rather than Attic.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Taverna podling has its code in multiple git repositories
> https://taverna.incubator.apache.org/code/
> Most of these were imported from the initial Software Grant
>
>
> The Taverna PPM
e can argue a CDN is bad if someone wants to read
offline. On the other, I don't like being added to the security update
chain if there is an issue in D3/jQuery/bootstrap etc.
Hen
+1.
Kudos to the podling for voting for retirement. The JIRA gives hope that
there is user activity, but if the lack of commits and existence of a
technical alternative in Hadoop suggests this is a good decision.
Hen
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Billie Rinaldi wrote:
> After a l
cking item in the previous vote.
+1.
Hen
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Anirudh Subramanian <
anirudh2...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0, release
> candidate RC3.
> As suggested by Justin and Henri, we
I'll poke the legal-discuss thread; however why can't we have the build
script for the tar.gz start by removing the .md file?
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Anirudh wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original
> repo, since it is a submodule.
>
hread regarding flaky tests/CI fails.
Hen
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Anirudh wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0, release
> candidate RC2.
>
> Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
&
cycles waiting to do something.
Which takes us full circle - if what we want are coaches, absent (burnt
out?) mentors are no surprise at all.
Hen
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:35 AM, wrote:
> +1000
>
> I've not been very active in the incubator for some time. I've
> participat
ining items before graduation)
Tempted to throw in these, though feeling more badge-like:
* Website complete (brand, security note, link to Foundation etc)
* Apache Blogged
* Conference presentation
* Board report complete, no comments/concerns
Hen
Given there's an asfinfra user there, it seems official. I doubt the infra
team would be involved otherwise :)
Maybe they have instructions on how to interact with the account?
Hen
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was pointed at https
within
incubation, with more expectation on mentor activity for podlings at
earlier milestones.
Hen
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > As for the metric -- I really think that using mentor turnout on release
> > voting threads will serve us well.
rs,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On Mar 7, 2018 04:13, "John D. Ament" wrote:
> >
> >> .htaccess support should still work. I would recommend following up
> with
> >> infra if you're seeing something not quite right.
> >>
> >> John
>
Apologies for my rustiness :(
Are we still able to manage a mod_rewrite configuration per project, or did
that go away?
Thanks,
Hen
-- Forwarded message --
From: Aaron Markham
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:54 PM
Subject: 404 issues
To: d...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
I've
+1. License change looks good to me.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:28 AM, YiZhi Liu wrote:
> Just remind that the voting is ongoing. Please help to verify whether
> the release candidate meets the standard and vote accordingly.
>
> 2018-02-13 23:37 GMT-08:00 YiZhi Liu :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As we ha
cense). I can make the
> > required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you think
> > this is a blocker for this release?
>
> Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote differently.
>
>
Agreed. -1 on my part. The LICENSE file is critical and shouldn't get worse.
Hen
Lots of whitespace on end of NOTICE
* Comment added to CODEOWNERS to explain the file so we don't cause
community problems
* There was a suggestion to simplify the LICENSE to not explicitly list
which packages are under each license. Something to consider.
Hen
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:45
icensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
Fair enough.
My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the MXNet
package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already being
listed then that's a weak argument :)
Hen
Thanks Justin.
Some comments inline on ones I don't think need fixing; but afaict from
MXNet dev@ activity the plan is to produce a new release and restart the
vote.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> -1 binding due to license, header issues and having a compiled ja
vered by a CLA/grant (I
counted 400 contributors), so the original Copyright statement is
maintained (the enormously ugly 'Copyright Contributors').
Thanks,
Hen
Sorry for my slowness.
+1 from me.
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Sebastian wrote:
> +1 binding
>
>
> On 11.11.2017 07:44, Suneel Marthi wrote:
>
>> +1 binding
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Meghna Baijal <
>> meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>>>
>>>
>>> This is
deleted (regardless of project). If we have a retired Incubator podling
with code that didn't get sufficiently relicensed from another open source
license, no big deal (provided that's clear).
My vote (unsurprisingly) would be for treating a retired podling the same
way a retired project is treated.
Hen
ding
people via lazy consensus.
Hen
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Craig Russell wrote:
> I'd like to see a change in incubator policy w.r.t. voting new committers.
>
> While there are no Foundation policies on how to vote new committers, we
> do have best practices docu
+1.
Noting that Suneel was +1 in the original thread (ie: you have 3
mentor/Incubator-PMC +1s).
Hen
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Sebastian wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Successfully built and validated the RC from source.
>
> Best,
> Sebastian
>
>
> On 25.10.2017
Done. Anyone on TheAsf slack workspace can invite someone to the workspace.
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 03:28 Greg Stein wrote:
> Fair enough... then open it up. Not even sure why that's a question :-)
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Hen wrote:
>
> > While I lean to th
While I lean to the 'not seeing the value of Slack', we have many channels
on Slack now (mostly driven by Incubator projects I think; John seems to
have taken the lead on the workspace), so this isn't a thread for getting
rid of slack :)
Hen
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Craig
43 matches
Mail list logo
