incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject On Fluo (was Re: [CANCEL][VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2))
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:57:48 GMT
Mentor here catching up on things here after being offline for a week...

Wow. This rather blew up! A couple of things I wanted to say, in 
addition to an ACK that this mentor is paying attention (as much as the 
email backlog is caught up, anyways).

- I think there is a very fair point brought up by Craig/Justin/John at 
the gray line between "Apache Fluo" and "". However, I will say 
that I do *not* think this is remotely close to the level that we've 
seen in other TLPs as of late (will avoid explicit finger-pointing). 
That said, I think the outcome that the PPMC has came to on their own as 
next steps is healthy (see dev@fluo list). I also plan to address why 
some of these software tools which were developed in tandem with Fluo 
(pre-Apache) were not included with the original incubation proposal (I 
hadn't realized they were listed on the website as they were). I would 
venture most are unintentional omissions as the website came verbatim 
from pre-Apache fluo. The podling has already been responsive to my 
nit-picks on ASF and Incubator branding requests that I put forth to them.

- One thing that initially worried me is that a software release was 
being -1'd over podling branding (the later concession to separate the 
topics did make me happy). Proper branding for podlings, especially ones 
that have a pre-Apache life, is obviously tricky to do well and cycles 
of the review are inevitable. However, given how difficult creating 
properly-licensed ASF releases is, should branding concerns be lumped 
into release votes? Is there another mechanism by which we as IPMC can 
give feedback to podlings at a time which they are not already stressed 
trying to make a software release?

I'm reminded of John's which was a 
great high-level insight across podlings. Are branding-audits something 
that mentors could drive with their PPMC directly with shepherds/IPMC 
bringing their concerns directly to the PPMC/metnors (to avoid licensing 
becoming entangled with branding)? IPMC would obviously still have the 
ability to escalate things in very heinous situations, but -1'ing 
releases for website issues doesn't sit right with me presently (I'm 
happy to be taught otherwise, too).

- Josh

Christopher wrote:
> Consider this vote canceled, until we can work through some of the issues
> identified in the thread.
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 2:14 PM Christopher<>  wrote:
>> In preparation for a 1.0.0-incubating release of Fluo, the Fluo team is
>> first separately releasing a parent POM. This release passed a PPMC vote on
>> the Fluo dev@ list here:
>> Please consider the following candidate for Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating.
>> Git Commit:
>>      (
>>      e9ed4334dd4cc5df27def417f26d6d7362470cb8
>> Branch:
>>      fluo-parent-1-rc2
>> If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
>>      git tag -f -m 'Apache Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating' -s
>> rel/fluo-parent-1-incubating e9ed4334dd4cc5df27def417f26d6d7362470cb8
>> Staging repo:
>> Source (official release artifact):
>> (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for a
>> given artifact.)
>> Signing key fingerprint is: 8CC4F8A2B29C2B040F2B835D6F0CDAE700B6899D
>> Please vote one of:
>> [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
>> [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
>> [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
>> ... these artifacts as the 1-incubating release of Apache Fluo Parent POM.
>> This vote will end on Tue Aug 02 18:30:00 UTC 2016
>> (Tue Aug 02 14:30:00 EDT 2016 / Tue Aug 02 11:30:00 PDT 2016)
>> Thanks!
>> P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
>>      wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
>>      # note the trailing slash is needed

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message