On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:02 AM Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > Pssst really need you guys looking at the proposed replacement
> > documentation.
> >
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fab8122d7695e47bacbff680b83eb4ceed98539a7815e2232a
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Pssst really need you guys looking at the proposed replacement
> documentation.
>
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fab8122d7695e47bacbff680b83eb4ceed98539a7815e2232abf5d2f@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
There's a lot here, and with
Pssst really need you guys looking at the proposed replacement
documentation.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fab8122d7695e47bacbff680b83eb4ceed98539a7815e2232abf5d2f@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 1:21 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:5
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 4:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>> ...is this a policy we want to keep around?...
>
> I'm fine with removing it - community Darwinism at work ;-)
+1 for the same reason I'm always +1 on removing dead/little used
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 4:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> ...is this a policy we want to keep around?...
I'm fine with removing it - community Darwinism at work ;-)
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubato
I've taken a stab at incorporating this sentiment into a new guide I'm
working on, rather than updating the existing release guides. Explained in
the other email.
Take a look and let me know if you feel I've misstated anything.
John
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 5:04 PM Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
>
On 27 December 2016 at 20:44, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> I'd rather not sanctify exceptions with a precise list, but rather stop at:
>
> "During incubation, a podling's release package may not be perfect. It
... package may not be fully in compliance with [ASF release
policy](https://www.apache.o
I'd rather not sanctify exceptions with a precise list, but rather stop at:
"During incubation, a podling's release package may not be perfect. It
will be up to mentors and IPMC members
to define the appropriate leeway".
Or something to that extent.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 6:03 P
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:36 PM Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:29 AM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
>
> > This policy as far as I can tell has never been used by any podling.
>
> It has been used once (by ODF Toolkit).
>
> > I believe the problem it was trying to solve was getting
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> > So I was wondering, is this a policy we want to keep around?
>
> +1 to revert.
>
> The language was deliberately crafted as an addendum which would be easy to
> back out. Ditching it will have no problematic consequences.
Sounds right
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:29 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> This policy as far as I can tell has never been used by any podling.
It has been used once (by ODF Toolkit).
> I believe the problem it was trying to solve was getting binding votes on
> releases which has mostly been fixed (release votes
All,
I felt this required a separate discussion. The incubator maintains
something referred to as the 2013 alternate voting policy. You can find
the full details starting here:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
This policy as far as I can tell has never been
12 matches
Mail list logo
