Hi,
All the incubator releases of Dubbo project have been removed.
Kind Regards,
Jun
> On Nov 17, 2019, at 7:49 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It looks like you have some old incubator releases here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/
>
&g
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 00:15, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I have a few questions:
> > 1. are projects required to delete those old incubating release because
> the
> > projects are now TLPs ?
>
> More encouraged than required I think.
>
ok, thx.
>
> > 2. in the case of Joshua, even it's b
Hi,
> I have a few questions:
> 1. are projects required to delete those old incubating release because the
> projects are now TLPs ?
More encouraged than required I think.
> 2. in the case of Joshua, even it's been a while since the project moved
> outside of Incubator, that's still the latest
should we remove it anyway ?
Thanks and regards,
Tommaso
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 11:34, Neil C Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, 23:49 Justin Mclean,
> wrote:
>
> > It looks like you have some old incubator releases here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incub
Thanks Justin.
We should cut new releases of the main repo and runtimes. I've started a
discussion thread for the main repo.
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 3:57 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It looks like you have some old incubator releases here:
> https://dist.apache.org/r
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, 23:49 Justin Mclean, wrote:
> It looks like you have some old incubator releases here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/
>
> We’re cleaning up the release area and it would be great if you can remove
> these old releases.
>
If you
Hi,
It looks like you have some old incubator releases here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/
We’re cleaning up the release area and it would be great if you can remove
these old releases.
If for some reason you need to link to an old release you can do so with a link
to
Hi,
> Yes, though typically the staged maven repo is reviewed as a part of the
> release.
+1 best to review and vote on both at once
>> (q2) If the answer of q1 is yes, do we need to prepare different
>> LICENSE and NOTICE files for the binaries?
IMO the answer is likely to be yes. In a lot o
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:14 PM Tsz Wo Sze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The release VOTE has been passed in both the Podling dev list [1] and
> the Incubator's general list [2] for Apache Ratis. I also have copied
> the RC to dist/release so that it is available at [3].
>
> My questions are:
> (q1) Our rele
Hi,
The release VOTE has been passed in both the Podling dev list [1] and
the Incubator's general list [2] for Apache Ratis. I also have copied
the RC to dist/release so that it is available at [3].
My questions are:
(q1) Our release is a source release, could we distribute binaries
through othe
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> It's ok for a podling to change its name at any time during the
> incubation process, but the earlier the better IMO, by far. If you
> don't get a timely answer to PODLINGNAMESEARCH-105 I suggest starting
> a vote here for renaming t
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Kathy Saunders wrote:
> ...I was looking at the incubator release pages, and realized that there is
> nothing that states that the name must be approved prior to a release
It's ok for a podling to change its name at any time during the
incubation process,
I'm working on Apache Quarks and the community has been very active over
the last few months. I was thinking about the right time to start a
release; we are still working on the build and license issues, but should
be able to start the process once that is done.
I had thought we would want to wa
sebb wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 15:29:17 +:
> On 27 February 2012 03:01, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > sebb wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 02:17:15 +:
> >> On 26 February 2012 18:39, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >> > Andy Seaborne wrote on Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 17:37:49 +:
> >> >> 3/
> >> >>
>
On 27 February 2012 03:01, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> sebb wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 02:17:15 +:
>> On 26 February 2012 18:39, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > Andy Seaborne wrote on Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 17:37:49 +:
>> >> 3/
>> >>
>> >> [[
>> >> Often symbolic links are created from the root of
sebb wrote on Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 02:17:15 +:
> On 26 February 2012 18:39, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Andy Seaborne wrote on Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 17:37:49 +:
> >> 3/
> >>
> >> [[
> >> Often symbolic links are created from the root of the project
> >> distribution directory to the latest ver
On 26 February 2012 18:39, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Andy Seaborne wrote on Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 17:37:49 +:
>> 3/
>>
>> [[
>> Often symbolic links are created from the root of the project
>> distribution directory to the latest version of each release. This
>> allows scripts or users to easily l
Andy Seaborne wrote on Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 17:37:49 +:
> 3/
>
> [[
> Often symbolic links are created from the root of the project
> distribution directory to the latest version of each release. This
> allows scripts or users to easily locate the latest release.
> ]]
>
> is at odds with
>
>
On 24/02/12 16:56, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Mark Struberg wrote on Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 09:17:57 +:
PS: txs to Daniel Shahaf for pointing me at the current docs
I didn't :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incub
Mark Struberg wrote on Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 09:17:57 +:
> PS: txs to Daniel Shahaf for pointing me at the current docs
>
I didn't :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands
Hi!
I've lately seen many incubator projects which didn't copy their source and
binary distribution packages to our official distribution area.
For Top Level Projects this is http://www.apache.org/dist/ and pretty well
known.
For Incubator Projects the correct location is
http://www.apache.
On 29 November 2011 18:34, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> No committee can take action without a majority on that committee
> approving the action. The VP might take action by fiat (they are
> given that authority) - I can't imagine that would ever happen
> except in consultation with legal-private
On 11/29/2011 10:26 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebb wrote:
This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
This does seem odd.
This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
cannot be held back by any entity or block of committers
No committee can take action without a majority on that committee
approving the action. The VP might take action by fiat (they are
given that authority) - I can't imagine that would ever happen
except in consultation with legal-private@ for a legal issue raised
on private@ that impeded that relea
On 29 November 2011 16:26, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebb wrote:
>> This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
>> This does seem odd.
>
> This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
> cannot be held back by any entity or block
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sebb wrote:
> This specifically says that a majority is NOT required.
> This does seem odd.
This does mean that a release (for example due to a security issue)
cannot be held back by any entity or block of committers.
Martijn
On 28 November 2011 19:22, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Nov 28, 2011 7:01 PM, "Neha Narkhede" wrote:
>>
>> >> That is because, every single time, the RM agreed that the release
>> was worth re-cutting.
>>
>> We have been assuming that i
On 29 November 2011 12:18, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> hopefully you will get the support you need on your dev list. However,
>> please do not hesitate to come back to this list if you need clarity. It
>> may take too many emails and you might
Jun,
hopefully you will get the support you need on your dev list. However,
please do not hesitate to come back to this list if you need clarity. It
may take too many emails and you might need a thick skin, but we will help
in our strange way.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and
Thanks everyone for the feedback. This is very constructive and helpful. We
will try to roll out a new RC accordingly.
We are grateful for all the help that we got from Apache members and are
proud to be part of Apache.
Jun
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:05 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 20
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:12 PM, David Crossley wrote:
> I cannot understand why people are confused on those points.
Empathy is hard when you've forgotten what it was like to learn the
topic. There is a lot of documentation, but it is not curated. To
apprehend the topic, one has to read the foun
On 29 November 2011 00:12, David Crossley wrote:
> When Apache Forrest became a TLP, just prior to the Incubator starting,
> there were no mentors to tell me stuff.
HeHe - and that's exactly where I learned it - although I was lucky
enough to have mentors within the project. That's one reason why
Search for the two words: release veto
A top hit is http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
It has been that way for a long time.
It is the Release Manager who decides whether to halt a release.
They are guided by +1/-1 votes.
I cannot understand why people are confused on thos
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:50 AM, sebb wrote:
> In which case, I suggest you post a clean message requesting feedback,
> as this thread does not appear to be the right place for this now.
The link was to the last RC. -C
-
To unsu
Suggestion:
There are cases where the 'official word' is a full-ASF document which
we don't lightly edit. Yet, we see some evidence that podlings have
trouble reaching the right interpretation.
We don't want to duplicate, but we could supplement.
Specific proposal: I'm willing to try to write a
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Dear Apache members,
>
> Over the past 2 months, the Kafka Apache incubator project has been trying
> to release its very first version in Apache. After 7 RCs, we are still not
> done. Part of this is because most of us are new to the Apache releas
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 28, 2011 7:01 PM, "Neha Narkhede" wrote:
>
> >> That is because, every single time, the RM agreed that the release
> was worth re-cutting.
>
> We have been assuming that it is the rule of Apache to cut another RC even
> if it ge
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:56:59PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A majority of +1's over -1's is required, obviously :)
That would be sane, but that's not how I read this passage:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
Votes on whether a package is ready to be re
>> That is because, every single time, the RM agreed that the release
was worth re-cutting.
We have been assuming that it is the rule of Apache to cut another RC even
if it gets a single -1 vote.
>> A majority of +1's over -1's is required, obviously :)
Although this seems reasonable, do people
On 11/27/2011 3:34 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I think I've been leading a sheltered existence. In the TLPs of which
I play a part, over the 5 years or so that I've been around, I've
never seen a release proceed past a -1. Every single time, a -1 has
led to recutting the release.
That is becaus
On 28 November 2011 02:56, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> I think you missed a very important part of what I said, let me quote
>> the para you refer to:
> [snip]
>> My point is we can't expect the mentors to type everything over and
>> over again
> From: Chris Douglas
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
>> Cc: "kafka-...@incubator.apache.org"
>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 9:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>>
>> On Sun, Nov
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I think you missed a very important part of what I said, let me quote
> the para you refer to:
[snip]
> My point is we can't expect the mentors to type everything over and
> over again for every podling, that's why we have docs. We can (and
>
On 28 November 2011 02:01, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> I did not see anyone say RTFM, did you?
>
> That's how I read Ross's account of the Rave project (mentor pointed
> to the docs, RM read them, monthly releases bloomed). I don't think
> that w
ot;
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Joe Schaefer
> wrote:
>> I did not see anyone say RTFM, did you?
>
> That's how I read Ross's account of
..@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 7:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>>
>> Ross is 100% in identifying mentors as critical to a smooth release.
>> More specifically, mentors familiar with what a
On 28 November 2011 00:46, Chris Douglas wrote:
> I reject the RTFM
> suggestion as trolling.
I never aid RTFM. I said the documentation in conjunction with mentors guidance.
I also said the documentation needs work and asked for specific
pointers as to where.
Furthermore I supported Joe's comm
with each other.
Are you game?
- Original Message -
> From: Chris Douglas
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 7:46 PM
> Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>
> Ro
OK, I'm sorry, but leviadocs??!!
I'll buy you a beer for that AWESOME word :-) BTW, I agree with all
of your points below, dude. In fact, to add to them, I would suggest
my approach is simply what i learned from Justin, Jukka, Joe S. and
others -- teach the project how to build community, to lea
Ross is 100% in identifying mentors as critical to a smooth release.
More specifically, mentors familiar with what a project is likely to
face in an Incubator vote.
I'm sorry to say that I was an AWOL mentor for the first 5 RCs. I
still wouldn't have anticipated the objections from the IPMC that-
I think I've been leading a sheltered existence. In the TLPs of which
I play a part, over the 5 years or so that I've been around, I've
never seen a release proceed past a -1. Every single time, a -1 has
led to recutting the release.
In some ways, I'd expect the incubator to be more conservative (
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>> Any legal issue serious enough to VETO a release would require code
>> access to be blocked and all discussions taken private. Anything short
>> of this isn't a VETO.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. I mean if a
he.org"
> Cc: Joe Schaefer ; "kafka-...@incubator.apache.org"
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>&
- Original Message -
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Joe Schaefer ; "kafka-...@incubator.apache.org"
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releas
On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>
>>> NO. The only time someone can claim to hold a veto over a release vote is
>>> when they are jibberjabbering about legal issues. NOTICE errors really
>>> don't risk a lawsuit from anyone, so those -1's are NOT vetoes.
>>
>> If Jo
Sorry screaming kids prevented me from reviewing properly. one sentence was
made incomprehensible by autocorrect...
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 27, 2011 8:09 PM, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
>
> I sympathize with you're comments, however, I do want to point out
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Dear Apache members,
>
> Over the past 2 months, the Kafka Apache incubator project has been trying
> to release its very first version in Apache. After 7 RCs, we are still not
> done. Part of this is because most of us are new to the Apache releas
haefer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Jun Rao
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13 PM
>>> Subjec
-...@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13 PM
>>> Subject: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>>>
>>> Dear Apache members,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 2. Different Apache members have different inte
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Jun Rao
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13 PM
>> Subject: concerns abo
I sympathize with you're comments, however, I do want to point out that the
problems are more to do with the Project committers and mentors than the
process (although documentation can always be improved).
As evidence I submit the Apache Rave poddling. This project made its first
release within a
On Nov 27, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Jun Rao
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13 PM
>> Subject: concerns abo
- Original Message -
> From: Jun Rao
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13 PM
> Subject: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>
> Dear Apache members,
[...]
> 2.
Dear Apache members,
Over the past 2 months, the Kafka Apache incubator project has been trying
to release its very first version in Apache. After 7 RCs, we are still not
done. Part of this is because most of us are new to the Apache release
process and are learning things along the way. However,
Doug/Kevan, thanks for the information, appreciated. Have you considered
adding this to the incubator FAQ? Perhaps it's there somewhere, but I
couldn't find any detail on this one way or the other.
Regards,
Patrick
Patrick Hunt wrote:
Are there any issues with Apache tlps using
On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Patrick Hunt wrote:
>> Are there any issues with Apache tlps using incubator releases? I've heard,
>> but cannot find any official documentation, that tlps should not. Is this
>> really the case? Are there any rules/g
Patrick Hunt wrote:
Are there any issues with Apache tlps using incubator releases? I've
heard, but cannot find any official documentation, that tlps should not.
Is this really the case? Are there any rules/guidelines for this?
I don't think this is a problem. One project can ev
Are there any issues with Apache tlps using incubator releases? I've
heard, but cannot find any official documentation, that tlps should not.
Is this really the case? Are there any rules/guidelines for this?
Thanks,
Pa
>>>the draconian release process. ;-)
Actually it is quite true. Last time I released OpenWebBeans, it took
nearly 1 month :) Besides, it is also very helpful to understand Apache way
release procedures.
--Gurkan
2009/11/16 Jukka Zitting
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Jim Jagielski
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Ironically, when the Incubator first formed, podlings could NOT do a release
>> and many yelled about it.
>
> Yes, the originally reason behind it, iirc, was so podlings had a reason
On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>>> IIRC, Martijn has offered a proper legal review in the place of a
> "release".
>>> This sounded pretty reasonable to me. I would agree to that.
>
>> Yup. I've already stated that I have no problems with running RAT an
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> IMHO a podling should know how to cut an ASF release
>> the easiest way to demonstrate this knowledge is to cut a release
>> but it's not the only way.
>
> I don't have an argument with any of those three p
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> IMHO a podling should know how to cut an ASF release
> the easiest way to demonstrate this knowledge is to cut a release
> but it's not the only way.
I don't have an argument with any of those three points.
I also suggest that there is a difference between preparin
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> > IIRC, Martijn has offered a proper legal review in the place of a
> "release".
>> > This sounded pretty reasonable to me. I would agree to that.
>
>> Yup. I've already stated that I have no problems with running RAT
Greg Stein wrote:
> > IIRC, Martijn has offered a proper legal review in the place of a
"release".
> > This sounded pretty reasonable to me. I would agree to that.
> Yup. I've already stated that I have no problems with running RAT and
> working through those issues. Might have been hard to see i
anagement of
> >> >> releases within each podling distribution directory is delegated to
> >> >> the appropriate podling.
> >> >>
> >> >> Release artifacts can be uploaded into the podling distribution
> >> >> direct
ctory using scp. It is best to scp into the home directory and
>> >> then copy into position from there.
>> >> ====
>> >>
>> >> The first paragraphs shows the location of the dist directory on p.a.o
>> >>
>> >> Martijn
&g
ectory and
> >> then copy into position from there.
> >>
> >>
> >> The first paragraphs shows the location of the dist directory on p.a.o
> >>
> >> Martijn
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Francis De
&
>> then copy into position from there.
>>
>>
>> The first paragraphs shows the location of the dist directory on p.a.o
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Francis De
>> Brabandere wrote:
>>> I suppose those should be
t; Brabandere wrote:
>> I suppose those should be available on the apache mirrors instead? How
>> do we get them there?
>>
>> Francis
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> Just noticed that (some) Incubator releases are being ma
Brabandere wrote:
> I suppose those should be available on the apache mirrors instead? How
> do we get them there?
>
> Francis
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, sebb wrote:
>> Just noticed that (some) Incubator releases are being made from
>> personal directories on peop
Hi,
2009/9/1 sebb :
> Just noticed that (some) Incubator releases are being made from
> personal directories on people (minotaur).
>
> That does not seem right to me, but perhaps I'm being too picky?
It's not right. Both Infra policy [1] and Incubator policy [2] clearly
say
I suppose those should be available on the apache mirrors instead? How
do we get them there?
Francis
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, sebb wrote:
> Just noticed that (some) Incubator releases are being made from
> personal directories on people (minotaur).
>
> That does not seem righ
Just noticed that (some) Incubator releases are being made from
personal directories on people (minotaur).
That does not seem right to me, but perhaps I'm being too picky?
Example:
http://incubator.apache.org/empire-db/downloads/download
a, it is hard for a podling that comes from a
> corporate environment (where the initial committer base is basically a
> development team) to build a developer community without a release.
>
> Giving a podling a defined exit strategy (e.g. "Three incubator
> releases") is nice, b
ial committer base is basically a
development team) to build a developer community without a release.
Giving a podling a defined exit strategy (e.g. "Three incubator
releases") is nice, but it will be subverted by projects doing "rc,
alpha and beta" releases ("Oh no, that
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:45 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> How about a brand new idea?
>>
>> Lay down a Milestone-style chart of what it takes to operate as an ASF
>> project. Demonstrate community of meritocracy, add committers or ppmc
>> membe
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:45 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about a brand new idea?
>
> Lay down a Milestone-style chart of what it takes to operate as an ASF
> project. Demonstrate community of meritocracy, add committers or ppmc
> members based on contributions, comple
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Drop any pretense that the incubator has a say
>> over the already-done code releases, and we can seriously start the real
>> discussion, which would have been "motivating projects to gr
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Not accept podlings to release code. Possibly having the "final
> act" of the podling to do a release, which effectuates the graduation.
>
> I am Ok with either of these, since I think that downstream users
> ain't st
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> I will support the "initial intent" of no releases out of Incubator.
>
> Which would work, except for the fact that the incubator decided it's a good
> idea to have podlings demonstrate how releases work in a meritocracy
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drop any pretense that the incubator has a say
> over the already-done code releases, and we can seriously start the real
> discussion, which would have been "motivating projects to graduate" if we
> hadn't wasted s
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:45 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Color me confused again, but during setup and formation of the Incubator,
>> a podling had to graduate before doing a release. It was rather well
>> established before this rule was modifi
On 10/9/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> this is great, thanks. I don't want to muddy the
> waters, but is it time to bring up the maven repo
> question again as well?
it would have been clearer to until the vote has concluded
> If incuba
Robert,
this is great, thanks. I don't want to muddy the
waters, but is it time to bring up the maven repo
question again as well? If incubator releases *are*
official releases, is there a reason not to upload
maven artifacts to the central repository?
--Thilo
Robert Burrell Donkin
On 3/21/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/19/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If these are indeed going to be official releases, we should totally
> > dispense with the requirements for "-incubating" i
On 15 Mar 07, at 9:23 PM 15 Mar 07, Henri Yandell wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus
mirrors).
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
+1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
-1
Vote to last a week. Unless peopl
On 3/19/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If these are indeed going to be official releases, we should totally
> dispense with the requirements for "-incubating" in artifact filenames
> and version numbers, let them announce the re
On Mar 15, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus
mirrors).
[ ] +1
[ X ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ X] +1
[ ] -1
People need incentives to get out of the incubator. Esp
On 3/15/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[x] +1
[ ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[x] -1
So long as Incubator releases are distributed as art
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
