Hi Jordan,
Yep, thank you. I will be suggesting at graduation time barring any
epiphanies all around that you guys go the TLP route.
Good luck.
Cheers,
Chris
On 3/1/13 6:29 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" wrote:
>Chris,
>
>I added a line to the Alignment section. Let me know if it's OK.
>
>-JZ
>
>On
The discussion on this seems to have finished. Is now a good time to ask for a
vote?
-Jordan
On Mar 1, 2013, at 4:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman wrote:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg38991.html
>
>
>
> Jordan Zimmerman
---
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> ...I suppose if a new product + its community want to become part of a PMC,
> coding could happen under that PMC (so for example: in a branch of their
> repository, releases require 3 +1's by that PMC), but with IPMC or
> comdev watching from
I suppose if a new product + its community want to become part of a PMC,
coding could happen under that PMC (so for example: in a branch of their
repository, releases require 3 +1's by that PMC), but with IPMC or
comdev watching from the sidelines and helping if needed.
Over at Subversion we once
Hi Niall, and Greg,
Just to echo Greg, +1, yes would have preferred it to have happened in the
existing
community then.
Also, agree with Greg -- exceptions can be permitted from time to time,
but I don't think
graduation into existing TLP should be an accepted norm.
Cheers,
Chris
On 3/1/13 8:55
On Mar 1, 2013 8:33 PM, "Niall Pemberton" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > I concur with Chris, and want to strengthen/meta the point. The
Incubator
> > should not be used for projects which are intended to become part of an
> > existing TLP. The Incubator *create
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I concur with Chris, and want to strengthen/meta the point. The Incubator
> should not be used for projects which are intended to become part of an
> existing TLP. The Incubator *creates* Apache-style communities. But... Stop.
>
> For these, we
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 2/26/13 4:18 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> This is exactly the scenario I have in mind. Most of the times,
>>> projects aim for being very successful and have their own healthy
>>> community, but that is not a
Chris,
I added a line to the Alignment section. Let me know if it's OK.
-JZ
On Feb 26, 2013, at 1:23 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
wrote:
> I would appreciate at some level a note in your proposal regarding at
> least the concern by
> one member of the IPMC that Curator should grow into its
On Feb 27, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> Just trying to understand what is being suggested...
>
> Is it that, should a podling decide it can't go for TLP, and that
> another TLP is prepared to accept them, then effectively the
> responsibility that the incubator PMC has is transferred to
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Guys, this was my point a few weeks ago, and the question I posed to
> the board. Did the board discuss it at the meeting, or is that part of
> the board meeting happening here?
Here is the comment I made in response to your question. Se
Just trying to understand what is being suggested...
Is it that, should a podling decide it can't go for TLP, and that
another TLP is prepared to accept them, then effectively the
responsibility that the incubator PMC has is transferred to that TLP.
*They* need to incubate the new community into i
Hi Dave,
On 2/27/13 9:44 AM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>[..snip..]
Thanks for the examples.
>Each case differs. I can agree that we do not want to encourage new
>podlings to come in with Plan A to be graduating into an existing TLP,
>but I don't think we should exclude a future case should it be st
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 2/26/13 4:18 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> This is exactly the scenario I have in mind. Most of the times,
>>> projects aim for being very successful and have their own healthy
>>> community, but that is not a
>
> 0. What does "bogged down" mean? Needs specific definition.
Chris,
This is the point in the conversation where I hear the voice of Ross
calling me justly to account for wasting people's time by writing too
quickly. So I will try to atone by clarification.
I think that we are all starting fro
Hi Dan,
On 2/26/13 5:36 PM, "Daniel Kulp" wrote:
>
>On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:21 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On 2/26/13 4:18 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>>
This is exactly the scenario I have in mind. Most of the times,
projects aim for being very succ
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:21 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 2/26/13 4:18 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> This is exactly the scenario I have in mind. Most of the times,
>>> projects aim for being very successful and have their own healthy
>>> community, but that is n
Hi Dave,
On 2/26/13 4:18 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>>
>> This is exactly the scenario I have in mind. Most of the times,
>> projects aim for being very successful and have their own healthy
>> community, but that is not always the outcome, and exiting Incubator
>> as an adopted project should be
Hi Benson,
On 2/26/13 2:58 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>>[..snip..]
>>>
>>>I think that there are several hairs worth splitting here.
>>>
>>>1. Merging into a TLP is a possible outcome for a podling, even when
>>>the initial intention is to graduate independently. Even if we
>>>eliminate this
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hey Pat,
>
>
> On 2/26/13 11:39 AM, "Patrick Hunt" wrote:
>
>>[…snip…]
>>>
>>> Either: (a) define Curator to be its own separate project/community,
>>>with
>>> a goal of TLP;
>>> or (b) nix Incubation and just make these guys part
On Feb 26, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Benson,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/26/13 2:17 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at
NOTE: Luciano Resende has been added as a mentor for the Curator Proposal.
-Jordan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> Hi Benson,
>>
>>
>> On 2/26/13 2:17 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
...
>> +1 to both, assuming Legal Affairs accepts 2)
>
> Guys, this was my point a few weeks ago, and the question I posed to
> the board. Did the board discuss it at the meeti
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Luciano,
>
> On 2/26/13 12:03 PM, "Luciano Resende" wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>
>>+1, We don't need to discuss exit criteria before entering incubation.
>
> Actually we do and I can. Else I'm pretty useless on the IPMC.
>
> I just went
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Benson,
>
>
> On 2/26/13 2:17 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
...I'd like to suggest two changes:
>>>
Hi Benson,
On 2/26/13 2:17 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> ...I'd like to suggest two changes:
>>>
>>> 1) Incubation is for new TLPs only. Turn off the "graduate-into-TLP"
>>>
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> ...I'd like to suggest two changes:
>>
>> 1) Incubation is for new TLPs only. Turn off the "graduate-into-TLP" option.
>>
>> 2) Move the "short form" IP clearance to Legal Affairs,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> ...I'd like to suggest two changes:
>
> 1) Incubation is for new TLPs only. Turn off the "graduate-into-TLP" option.
>
> 2) Move the "short form" IP clearance to Legal Affairs, to clarify that
> we're only talking IP, rather than other concerns.
I concur with Chris, and want to strengthen/meta the point. The Incubator
should not be used for projects which are intended to become part of an
existing TLP. The Incubator *creates* Apache-style communities. But... Stop.
For these, we don't want a separate/new community. They are supposed to be
Hi Jordan,
Thanks. To be clear, I'll be in support of your guys' acceptance into the
Apache Incubator.
I would appreciate at some level a note in your proposal regarding at
least the concern by
one member of the IPMC that Curator should grow into its own TLP rather
than be a part of ZK
should it
Hi Luciano,
On 2/26/13 12:03 PM, "Luciano Resende" wrote:
>>
>
>
>+1, We don't need to discuss exit criteria before entering incubation.
Actually we do and I can. Else I'm pretty useless on the IPMC.
I just went through an experience where my objection/VOTE didn't really
mean anything in a sit
> Quoting Incubator docs written by one or two or a small handful of people
> in a committee with 100+ members:
I'm new to this, so I apologize in advance for oddities in etiquette ;)
> So, if your goal is to eventually get into ZK, I just don't think the
> Incubator is the right way. It sounds li
Hi Jordan,
On 2/26/13 11:48 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" wrote:
>My viewpoint: I can see benefit to Curator both as a TLP and as part of
>ZK. One of my hopes of this process is to get an idea of what the
>community wants. Curator has been doing well outside of Apache. But, it's
>become clear to me th
Hey Pat,
On 2/26/13 11:39 AM, "Patrick Hunt" wrote:
>[…snip…]
>>
>> Either: (a) define Curator to be its own separate project/community,
>>with
>> a goal of TLP;
>> or (b) nix Incubation and just make these guys part of ZK, on a branch
>> now.
>
>Hi Chris. Unfortunately it's not clear cut to me
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Jordan Zimmerman
wrote:
> It will be an official transfer. Apache will get all the code and the name
> Curator.
>
> -JZ
>
> On Feb 26, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Jordan Zimmerman
>> wrote:
>>> == Source and Int
It will be an official transfer. Apache will get all the code and the name
Curator.
-JZ
On Feb 26, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Jordan Zimmerman
> wrote:
>> == Source and Intellectual Property Submission Plan ==
>>
>> * The initial source is alr
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Jordan Zimmerman
wrote:
> == Source and Intellectual Property Submission Plan ==
>
> * The initial source is already licensed under the Apache License, Version
> 2.0. https://github.com/Netflix/curator/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
So this is effectively a fork of the
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jordan Zimmerman
wrote:
> My viewpoint: I can see benefit to Curator both as a TLP and as part of ZK.
> One of my hopes of this process is to get an idea of what the community
> wants. Curator has been doing well outside of Apache. But, it's become clear
> to m
My viewpoint: I can see benefit to Curator both as a TLP and as part of ZK. One
of my hopes of this process is to get an idea of what the community wants.
Curator has been doing well outside of Apache. But, it's become clear to me
that "limited devs - single company" is a hinderance to wider ado
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Sorry I have to ask the question here. If the mentors consist of PMC
> members on ZK
> (at least Pat and Mahadev), what's the problem with creating a branch in
> ZK and just
> having the code be there and getting the
Hi Guys,
Sorry I have to ask the question here. If the mentors consist of PMC
members on ZK
(at least Pat and Mahadev), what's the problem with creating a branch in
ZK and just
having the code be there and getting the Curator proposed committers as
committers in
ZK ville, and hopefully PMC members
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> If you think that the right destination for curator is as part of ZK,
>> then it would be good to see substantive participation of the ZK PMC
>> in the incubation. The goal shoul
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> If you think that the right destination for curator is as part of ZK,
> then it would be good to see substantive participation of the ZK PMC
> in the incubation. The goal should be to 'graduate' by having the
> curator community be granted
If you think that the right destination for curator is as part of ZK,
then it would be good to see substantive participation of the ZK PMC
in the incubation. The goal should be to 'graduate' by having the
curator community be granted karma at ZK and the code folded in. This
would require, I think,
Ah no, I was not suggesting about Curator to become subproject of ZK. I
just afraid that if Curator is going as incubator it will end up as sub of
ZK as merging process.
Like Greg has mentioned in another reply, I would prefer Curator to be
merged as a higher level ZK client. Surely project like H
Hi,
Inputs from a current Curator user:
I followed one year ago the public thread Patrick mentionned and was
surprised to see the lack of interest for an higher level Zk client.
If this discussion happened now, maybe the interest would be different,
but still, I think Curator should be hosted
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Henry Saputra
> wrote:
>> So isnt this similar to HCatalog which relying on Hive metadata service
>> that ends up as sub project of Apache Hive?
>>
>
> I was against having Curator as a sub when it came up o
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> So isnt this similar to HCatalog which relying on Hive metadata service
> that ends up as sub project of Apache Hive?
>
I was against having Curator as a sub when it came up on the original
discussion thread, I still am.
Patrick
>
>
> On
So isnt this similar to HCatalog which relying on Hive metadata service
that ends up as sub project of Apache Hive?
If Apache Zookeeper would like to add Curator as the next gen client I
think it would be easier and integrated with the rest of ZK community.
Just my 2-cents
- Henry
On Mon, Feb
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> My concern is that we're looking at two "new" committers, rather than
> a Curator community. Following normal Incubator work, Curator would
> build a community for itself. But then we'd have a community
> *distinct* from that of Zookeeper. And i
My concern is that we're looking at two "new" committers, rather than
a Curator community. Following normal Incubator work, Curator would
build a community for itself. But then we'd have a community
*distinct* from that of Zookeeper. And it really looks like this
should be part of Zookeeper itself
+1 (non binding)
I've used Curator in the past and I'm happy to see this project joining the
foundation.
-- Andrei Savu
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose that Curator to be an Apache Incubator project.
>
>
+1 (non binding)
Apache ZooKeeper is critical for Apace HBase. There was some interest in
using Curator for managing those interactions going forward, for reasons as
described in this proposal, but also concern about its status wrt.
community. A successful incubation will put those concerns to res
Hello,
I would like to propose that Curator to be an Apache Incubator project.
The proposal can be found here: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CuratorProposal
I have included the contents of the proposal below.
Sincerely,
Jordan Zimmerman
===
= Curator - ZooKeeper client wra
55 matches
Mail list logo
