Check… 1 2 3
is this thing on? Just checking :)
Re: Apache Standard C++ Project chair change
Since being tasked as chair, I've seen no activity. There was an email from Bill regarding 2 outstanding iCLAs, but the response from one of the committers was less than optimistic. That's it. No Emails on dev@ or private@, no code activities, really no evidence at all of renewed interest/health/activity in stdcxx land. Am I wrong?
New chair and/or attic
Looking over the lack of activity within this project, it's obvious (at least to me), that maybe its day is done. Should I call a vote to move C++ to the Attic? Or is there someone who feels that the project should still exist *and* is willing to stand as chair?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote: On 08/29/12 10:54, Jim Jagielski wrote: Looking over the lack of activity within this project, it's obvious (at least to me), that maybe its day is done. Should I call a vote to move C++ to the Attic? Or is there someone who feels that the project should still exist *and* is willing to stand as chair? Hi Jim, The discussion back in February showed that, even though committers have not spent much time lately contributing new code to it, there is an active review of the activity occurring on the mailing list and people have volunteered time to at least review outside contributions. As Stefan remarked, putting it in the Attic pretty much closes the activity around it, as little as it is. The issue is that I'm not seeing any real activity on any of the mailing lists... I personally have a renewed interest in the implementation and am in the process of reviving my apache account with the intention of being a constant presence here, and I hope I will be able to contribute as well. I am not sure if anyone reviewed the patches volunteered by Stefan yet, or the changes in forks elsewhere, but I am currently looking at that, too. Good to know!
Re: New committers?
As I see it, these 2/3 people were added before I was assigned as chair. I also don't see that, at least according to ldap, that they have commit privs. Nor, as stated, were they added to committee-info.txt. And in March 2012's report (http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2012/board_minutes_2012_03_21.txt) we see: Last month, stdcxx added three committers/PMC members. One sent in his CLA and and an account for him was created. The other two are in the process of getting their CLAs signed by their employers. So how are/were they committers?? On Aug 30, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/30/2012 09:17 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Liviu Nicoaranikko...@hates.ms wrote: I see in the February report (http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2012-02.txt) that three new committers have been added to the project. Congratulations! Could one of you please update the stdcxx list of committers? I don't mean to punt but I think Jim Jagielski maintains a separate link with the correct list of committers: QUOTE An up-to-date list of all Apache committers (or committers-to-be) is being maintained by Jim Jagielski on this page. /QUOTE which links to: http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html But out of that comprehensive list of all the ASF Committers, I don't know who the other two stdcxx Committers are. Christopher Bergström, and Wojciech Meyer. Which also begs the question: why was this stdcxx Committers list update done this way, by linking to a separate page, when the change could have very well be made directly to the stdcxx's Committers list. I would usually update the Committers table when I chaired the project. But any committer can update the STDCXX site. It doesn't have to be the chair. It would be useful to have instructions for how to do it somewhere. Let me see if I can find some time to write them up and post them. FWIW, the link to Jim's page is there simply as a reference to the (at one point and maybe still) authoritative list of all committers and committers-to-be. I thought it would be handy when we forgot to update the table. Martin --Stefan
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 6:48 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: I'm sincerely sorry to ask this and I have my own answers, but why continue STDCXX when such negativity from Apache is apparent.. What negativity are you seeing? I'm not seeing any, certainly nothing that is apparent? Will Apache consider passing along some/all of it's CLA granted rights/additional permissions to another foundation that hosts open source projects? or Why not move to libc++? (Yes I realize the amount of effort involved here) That implies that activity would be higher if hosted elsewhere. Is this an opinion or something actually known?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com wrote: There's always good traffic when this topic comes up. Thanks to Jim who's made it his mission to pull the plug on STDCXX. I think this must be his third or fourth proposal to vote the project into the attic. No, it's not my mission. If it was I would have never volunteered to be chair and stdcxx would have been moved to the attic already. And what is strange is that it seems like its only when I bring up the proposal do people actually stir from their inactivity and come back to live and we see *SOME* activity on the list.
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 5:45 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: --- The facts as I know it 1) Our fork is maintained (continuous bug fixes - which we won't submit to Apache now) Why? 2) Stefan is putting in some work (one man army) Hardly a healthy community if just 1 person is putting in some work 3) Wojciech Meyer had put in some work 4) NetBSD has a small amount of patches they could probably push upstream (If Jörg has the time) 5) Martin is/was great for feedback in all areas of STL/C++/occasional code review - I'm really not sure if to you this would make the project dead or in a koma. The problem as I have said before is there needs to be some compelling reason to use STDCXX vs libc++. Instead of just trying to sweep it under the rug - why not find it a new home, put a one line call for help on a blog/homepage or etc. Apache leaders have a huge readership, but this koma issue isn't on the general radar. STDCXX isn't some stupid ass java framework or widget - It's a *critical* part of a C++ stack and the cost of leaving it out of the attic is negligible - What's the benefit of bringing up these attic discussions? It's a critical part in which people either lack the time, motivation or desire to push or submit patches to the canonical source? Or is the desire to force Apache's hand in the matter such that someone else's fork or branch becomes the de-facto source of this critical part??? If stdcxx is as important as you say, and you are fighting to keep it active, then put your money where your mouth is and start working on bumping up the activity. Submit your bug fixes.
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the attic. What is wrong with ALv2?
Re: STDCXX forks
On Aug 31, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote: Stefan's seem like a complete git-ification of the whole Apache repository but with no changes I could detect. FWIW, The ASF supports git so if people think it would help, all we'd need to do is ask #infra to move stdcxx to git.
Re: New chair and/or attic
The idea that ALv2 projects can't be added to FreeBSD ports is complete and total hogwash. Pure FUD. On Aug 31, 2012, at 8:43 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 08/31/12 07:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the attic. What is wrong with ALv2? Armchair lawyer discussion on this will never end and I'll try to keep this brief.. Apache lawyer views, our lawyer views, your views.. etc (not the problem here) FSF views which probably have some weight across the open source community is summed up with this.. Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html That view seems to have been accepted by the FBSD community - The effect is that the large amount of GPLv2 code in ports/elsewhere can't take advantage of STDCXX due to it's license. Please note I'm not arguing if this is correct, but just the feedback I've gotten. I'm not interested to fight that. Open source works like this in my experience : people use it, they love it and they contribute back. To get users we need to solve problems for larger communities - Make sense? Can you help clear this roadblock, yes or no?
Re: New committers?
Are you suggesting that FreeBSD does not allow the inclusion of ANY ALv2 library under its ports directory? On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:19 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: Do they come bundled with the compiler and link against every c++ application by default? I suspect that their risk assessment may be higher with something that's equivalent to libc on the system. (btw - anecdotal evidence and flippant comments don't help resolve this. Did you even read my previous email explaining this?)
Re: New committers?
On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:38 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/ 1/12 01:35 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:27 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: stdcxx ends up linking against *EVERY* C++ application if it's used in the default compiler setup. (Which is what I was trying to achieve) That includes ***GPLv2 software in ports. Get it? How exactly is APLv2 different from 2-clause BSD or 3-clause BSD in this respect? The BSD licenses are just as incompatible with GPLv2 as APLv2 is. Our views may be the same, but others are not from the apache website Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html FWIW, however, the ASF does not agree with that. That is pretty common knowledge. So your view agrees with that of the ASF.
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:41 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/ 1/12 01:28 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Your suggestion is that, somehow, one cannot push stdcxx as part of the FreeBSD ports collection. And that is because it is licensed under ALv2. My response is that that suggestion is total hogwash. That's not an authoritative response - To help resolve this maybe we could 1) Have Apache lawyers say the same thing via a letter to FBSD foundation or 2) Please have this link updated and provide a reference to where FSF has stated their revised compatibility views about APLv2 + GPLv2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Ummm... system library These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Re: New committers?
On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Wojciech Meyer wojciech.me...@googlemail.com wrote: Libstc++ is LGPL therefore can link with GPL project, and can link with ALv2 project, but stdcxx is ALv2 and cannot link with GPL project. That's basically what LGPL was designed for, to solve this problem. Nope... LGPL was designed as a counterpoint to the GPL, NOT to other-licensed libs.
Re: New committers?
As an ASF project? It's not going to happen. On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebormse...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: My input below. On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote: The two significant ones (as far as I can understand): - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho) Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up on STDCXX ownership. Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't own stdcxx. They license it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.) IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms. FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the GPLv2... So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher asks (IIUC)? Martin
Re: New committers?
If Christopher is interested in moving, then, to be frank, then I expect him to do whatever work is required to move it, including any legal legwork. This is esp true since his whole reason for moving it is, as I mentioned, completely bogus. My concern is to try to make it a success here. On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/06/2012 07:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: As an ASF project? It's not going to happen. Not necessarily as an ASF project. Christopher is interested in moving the project somewhere else. See for example: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201106.mbox/%3c4dfae25e.9040...@pathscale.com%3E I would also like to know what the options are. Martin On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebormse...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebormse...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: My input below. On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote: The two significant ones (as far as I can understand): - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho) Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up on STDCXX ownership. Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't own stdcxx. They license it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.) IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms. FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the GPLv2... So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher asks (IIUC)? Martin
Re: A question (or two) of procedure, etc.
Trivial fixes should just be fixed... the normal expectation is that bug reports are for non-trivial bugs or for trivial (and non-trivial) bugs reported from the outside. If a committers sees a bug, just go ahead and fix it, and document the fix in a commit log, changefile, etc ;) On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote: What is the latest policy in what regards trivial fixes, e.g., the volatile qualifier for the max var in LIMITS.cpp we discussed earlier, etc.? It seems excessive to create a bug report for such issues. Also, IIUC from reading previous discussions, forward and backward binary compatible changes go in 4.2.x, followed by merges to 4.3.x and trunk. Am I getting this right? Also, besides the Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, Solaris builds hosted on Apache (Jenkins) is anybody building on HP-UX, AIX, etc.? Thanks. Liviu
Re: A question (or two) of procedure, etc.
Many projects have CTR on trunk and RTC (based on trunk revisions) to branch. This works well. On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:40 AM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote: On 09/06/12 23:00, Martin Sebor wrote: Every project has certain branch strategy, I'm not sure about this so maybe Martin can advice. I prefer to develop on trunk and cherry pick to the other branches avoiding bulk merges (and that's in both directions). We've done most work on 4.2.x for historical reasons. I think a better strategy is to develop, as you suggest, on trunk which has the least restrictive commit policy, and merge changes out to the more restrictive branches as appropriate. If open to voting, I am for trunk first, branches later. Liviu
Board report time
It's time for our report to the board... what would we like to share? I see: o renewed discussion on health/viability of pmc o increased development being done o PMC expressing interest in moving to git
[REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
DESCRIPTION Apache STDCXX is a collection of algorithms, containers, iterators, and other fundamental components of every piece of software, implemented as C++ classes, templates, and functions essential for writing C++ programs. RELEASES * There has not been a release of stdcxx since 2008. Renewed work is being done on the 4.2.x and 4.3.x branches. CURRENT ACTIVITY * After a gentle nudge by the current chair, we've seen renewed activity on the mailing list. In particular, a specific BUGZ entry (STDCXX-1056) has seen a lot of discussion. * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote a rationale for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified. * Branching and development policies are being discussed on the mailing list. * Moving to git, as a way to draw in more potential developers was suggested, but as of yet there is no decision on whether to follow through with it. COMMUNITY * Stefan Teleman (stele...@apache.org) was added to the PMC in July ISSUES * There are no issues requiring board attention at this time.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: DESCRIPTION * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote a rationale for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified. You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an actionable item here. Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the correct process for this? What actionable item? --- Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin bob's views. If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their views may differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their views which gives *others* concern. This point of objection needs to be resolved and we appreciate your help in doing so.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: DESCRIPTION * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote a rationale for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified. You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an actionable item here. Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the correct process for this? What actionable item? --- Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin bob's views. If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their views may differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their views which gives *others* concern. This point of objection needs to be resolved and we appreciate your help in doing so. Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2 is incompatible w/ GPLv2? And all this despite the fact that GPLv2 makes specific accommodations for system libraries... Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to verify something in the GPLv2?
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2 is incompatible w/ GPLv2? And all this despite the fact that GPLv2 makes specific accommodations for system libraries... Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to verify something in the GPLv2? FWIW (for completeness) let me state that *every* lawyer I've spoken to says that since stdcxx is designed *AS* a system library, and as a *standard* system library, the whole GPLv2 and ALv2 licenses are incompatible argument is completely moot. The idea that one could not, for example, replace the current stdcxx library in FreeBSD with Apache stdcxx *because of the GPLv2 and ALv2 license incompatibility* is completely bogus. Since this basic argument is baseless, the idea that somehow stdcxx needs to be licensed under something else *because of this* is also bogus. PS: Even if the stdcxx library was under a commercial license, and/or completely proprietary, since it would be a standard, system library, GPLv2 applications would *still* be able to link to it... The GPL does NOT force system libs to even be open source.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:24 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/13/12 07:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to verify something in the GPLv2? No - We want to discuss the Apache foundation transferring their rights granted under the contributor agreement to another open source foundation. As of now, I see no reason for such a discussion. The ALv2 allows for forks and should the project decide that it no longer wishes to be here, then a move to the Attic would be the topic of discussion for *this* PMC. Anything else is, imo, premature and self-serving.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:12 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: We appreciate you telling the choir, but it doesn't help resolve this. How to best proceed? Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or something else? Why? What are you looking for? And who is the expected audience? Again, I have no desire to use Apache legal resources to resolve or discuss issues that the PMC itself does not have. I see this as your own personal venture, in which case you are free to use your own resources. If, however, you can formally and officially connect us with someone who is refusing to use/bundle Apache stdcxx (and has the authority to make such a decision), then the use of legal-discuss would be warranted.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
Sorry. I've been Reply-All'ing. On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or something else? I'm not sure what the question is, but it doesn't seem like a question for board@. Legal questions are handled by Apache's legal affairs team. If you don't see this addressed in http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html then file an issue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL. Doug
Status
Just a quick Email... the list has been pretty quiet lately and just pinging to see who's still watching and reading :)
Re: Status
Anyone wish to add anything? Is the project dead and attic bound, or is it not? On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Stefan Teleman stefan.tele...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Just a quick Email... the list has been pretty quiet lately and just pinging to see who's still watching and reading :) This project is obviously dead. There is no active development being done for C++2011, and no bug fixing for the existing C++2003 implementation. Fixing bugs in the current C++2003 implementation has proven impossible. And that's all I am going to say on that particular matter. Starting work now on the C++2011 implementation is much too late: there are already two open source production-quality implementations available: GNU and libc++/Clang. libc++ is already a full and complete implementation of C++2011. GNU will be complete in 2014. Both the GNU and the Clang implementations have been in the works for at least 4 years. Yes, there's this mailing list with close to zero relevant activity. Very easy to monitor and read: there's nothing to monitor, or read. Sorry to be blunt and somewhat negative, but these are the fact as I see them. -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
Search for new chair
I am stepping down as Chair of the C++ StdLib PMC. So the question is: Does this project and community elect a new Chair, or does it enter the Attic?
Fwd: [Contact] Media question
The ASF was asked to comment on the move of the project to the Attic. The below is what was sent. Begin forwarded message: From: Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org Subject: Re: [Contact] Media question To: Serdar Yegulalp ser...@genjipress.com No worries. Here it is again. One of the core goals of Apache projects is to create a healthy and viable community around a project; This implies a community dedicated to the continued growth of the code and a project which values and abides by the tenets of the Apache Way. When a project's activity level decrease so much that commits to the project become almost non-existant, or it is hard to muster the required 3 +1 votes for patch acceptance and releases, it becomes obvious that the project had reached its end-of-life. The Apache C++ Standard Library was given numerous opportunities to reboot itself and re-energize the community, but the sad fact is that it was never able to accomplish it. We understand the ire of Christian Bergström, but it indicates his unfamiliarity with Apache and Apache projects and how they are run and managed, as well as his confusion over what the Chair of an Apache project actually does. If there was still potential in the project, then that would have been clearly seen over the last several months, but as the mailing list and code repo logs show, there was no activity of merit at all for a long, long time, and Mr Bergström certainly had plenty of opportunity to provide some evidence of that potential; even some code commits from him and others would have been a factor. And so, after some discussion at the Apache board level, the following was sent to the project: At this month's board meeting, a resolution was passed to move Apache C++ Standard Library to the Attic, due to inactivity. The Attic home page [1] contains some details about its purpose - it is the destination for Apache projects that can no longer provide oversight or muster votes for a release. It isn't a reflection on the contributors or the codebase, and is intended to be non-impacting to users. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments, or if you are available to work with the Attic to help with the transition of resources. On Aug 6, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Serdar Yegulalp ser...@genjipress.com wrote: I don't believe I did, my apologies if it got lost in the shuffle. -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 8:03 AM To: Serdar Yegulalp Subject: Re: [Contact] Media question Ddi you get my response? On Aug 5, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Serdar Yegulalp ser...@genjipress.com wrote: Hi there - I just wanted to check back in and see if there was any progress on this. I'll need to have an answer by sometime tomorrow. (I can also have an answer in the coming week, but I'd prefer to have it sooner rather than later.) -Original Message- From: Serdar Yegulalp [mailto:ser...@genjipress.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:11 AM To: 'Jim Jagielski' Subject: RE: [Contact] Media question Sure thing. Earlier in July, a resolution was passed to move the Apache C++ Standard Library project to the Attic, as per discussion on the official mailing list (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx- dev/201307.mbox/%3C0F1B5FEB - 9312-44CA-96CF-B586B8CE6BA4%40apache.org%3E). This raised some ire on the part of Christian Bergström, who had offered to take over as chair of the project and claimed he still saw potential in it. I was interested in getting some official word from the Apache side as to the reasons behind these decisions. -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:55 AM To: Serdar Yegulalp Subject: Re: [Contact] Media question Hello Serdar, How would you like to proceed? An Email exchange is likely the easiest way... Cheers! On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Sally Khudairi sallykhuda...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, Serdar --following up on your request, it's my pleasure to introduce you to Jim Jagielski, Vice President of the Apache C++ Standard Library Project. I'm copying Jim here so you can connect directly regarding next steps. Thanks in advance, Jim, for helping Serdar! Kind regards, Sally [From the mobile; kindly excuse spelling/spacing/auto-correct anomalies] - Reply message - From: Serdar Yegulalp ser...@genjipress.com To: 'Sally Khudairi' s...@apache.org, pr...@apache.org Subject: [Contact] Media question Date: Tue, Jul 30, 2013 12:50 PM I'd like to secure a comment by the end of this week, or the beginning of next week. I may also have some follow-up questions, so by the end of this week would be ideal to give me time to respond. -Original Message- From: Sally Khudairi [mailto:s...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:47 PM To: Serdar Yegulalp; pr
Re: [Contact] Media question
On Aug 6, 2013, at 11:50 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: The Apache way didn't work for this project and instead of trying to think outside the box... Some passionate people (primarily you?) decided it was better to close it. If the Apache way didn't work for this project then the *only* option was to stop it from (trying to be) an Apache project. That happens. Some projects just aren't suited to be under the Apache umbrella, for a variety of reasons, and that's OK. The great thing about open source, and especially the ALv2, is that even though the project didn't work an as Apache project, there is nothing preventing anyone from taking the code and forking it someplace where it could work (possibly). Since you feel so passionately about it, I look forward to seeing your fork of it and the community and project you will build around it. And no, I didn't want my name in the press so much. The ASF was sought out; we didn't seek out the press. When the request came in, I was the logical choice to respond and Sally forwarded the request to me. You seem to be interested in spinning a story of behind the scenes drama and intrigue regarding all this. There is none. The truth is sometimes just boring...
