On 20/01/15 17:59, Reto Gmür wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@vafer.org wrote:
And what's so bad about the incubator? You could (maybe) later on come
to Commons.
That's exactly what clerezza did, we incubated 2009 and now propose a
generalized version of our RDF
On 20/01/2015 00:05, Peter Ansell wrote:
The tendency so far has been, since some of us are not paid
specifically to work on the relevant code, that once pull requests are
suggested, the discussion gets going for a few days and then falls
off. And eventually, once the API is stable it will
Hi all,
I've been reading the different threads where this issue has been discussed.
First, I'd like to say from Commons RDF we do not want to open the
discussion of sub-project. We all are quite experienced at the ASF to
know how bad that could be. And we are happy to be a regular component.
On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
community not really understanding how the ASF works.
I am disappointed by that comment. There are several ASF
But there will me much more in terms of discussion. That's why a TLP does
make any
sense for me.
TLP just because of a noisy API discussion - that's just not how it works.
I don't mind reading that discussion, or just deleting it, or creating a filter.
I've subscribed to
dev@commons.a.o
Hi Peter,
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 20 January 2015 at 05:44, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
[snip]
Yes, the shared resources are part of the Apache Commons community. It
was especially built to increase the responsibility of all committers for
all components. Jakarta had a long
Members of the Commons community are expected to be subscribed to the
dev mailing list. The impression I get from reading these messages is
that the RDF community has little to no interest in interacting with the
Commons community.
At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a
On 20/01/2015 09:29, Sergio Fernández wrote:
Hi all,
I've been reading the different threads where this issue has been
discussed.
First, I'd like to say from Commons RDF we do not want to open the
discussion of sub-project. We all are quite experienced at the ASF to
know how bad that
On 20/01/15 14:08, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 20/01/2015 13:07, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
community not really
There are several ASF projects in the
RDF space. They have been through the incubator. Please do talk to those
projects if you have concerns.
I am sorry - but how are those projects relevant in this case?
And what's so bad about the incubator? You could (maybe) later on come
to Commons.
On 20/01/2015 13:07, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
community not really understanding how the ASF works.
I am
As I see it, the Apache Commons has one partcular way of working. Every
Apache project has its own unique ways of working within the Apache way.
From my ASF experience (and that's shockingly 12+ years now) the
implementation of Apache way is not that very different across
projects. It varies -
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
On 20/01/2015 13:07, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
It might be my fault for misrepresenting The Commons-RDF community -
personally I am fairly fresh to the Apache (Oct 2014). The other, core
committers involved in Commons-RDF are seasoned Apache folks. I've
just tried to be a mediator.. My fault.
I think the community around commons-rdf is
Hi,
On 20/01/15 15:41, Andy Seaborne wrote:
Torsten -- interesting that graduation could be to commons - has that
happened before?
It already happened, yes:
http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+vote+graduate+subproject+commons
I would like to see Apache Commons
know that for many email list
== community == Apache project. But Apache Commons is special. As
pointed out - not everyone here will be involved with all Commons
components.
Yet we consider this as one community that has cross pollination and
shared responsibilities.
As Peter points out,
Something like https://about.gitlab.com/ installed at Apache
infrastructure would be a revolution.
Meanwhile we are stuck with mailing lists (with a subscription and
archive interface from 1995) - can we not just tweak that capability
by at least having a separate list? I know that for many email
Agree that maybe the the Incubator with a projected path to the
Commons could be a workable middle ground while Commons-RDF is still
incubating code-wise (but not community or Apache Way-wise).
No earlier project has gone through this route
(https://incubator.apache.org/projects/ ) - this would
Agree that maybe the the Incubator with a projected path to the
Commons could be a workable middle ground while Commons-RDF is still
incubating code-wise (but not community or Apache Way-wise).
To me it comes across as if community/ASF wise is the more important
part. This is really not meant
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@vafer.org wrote:
There are several ASF projects in the
RDF space. They have been through the incubator. Please do talk to
those
projects if you have concerns.
I am sorry - but how are those projects relevant in this case?
And
2015-01-20 16:09 GMT+01:00 Sergio Fernández wik...@apache.org:
Hi,
On 20/01/15 15:41, Andy Seaborne wrote:
Torsten -- interesting that graduation could be to commons - has that
happened before?
It already happened, yes:
http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.
There is the build system for some, for some it's the people - be it
just for oversight. And then there is the PMC and the board reports.
Of course, there are some _administrative_ connections; it's very
helpful to have a home for projects that by themselves wouldn't have
the resources to
On 20 January 2015 at 05:44, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
Hello Peter,
2015-01-20 1:05 GMT+01:00 Peter Ansell ansell.pe...@gmail.com:
On 20 January 2015 at 05:44, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan
Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the Commons RDF
project?
I don't think we should make an exception. Setting up mail filters isn't
that difficult.
Emmanuel Bourg
Hi all,
following up the discussion at [1] the folks from git github commons RDF
project [2] would like to join the Apache Commons Project, but they ask us
to create a separate mailing list for this component. Gilles has already
brought up this topic [3] and my feeling is, that we in general
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the Commons RDF
project?
I don't think we should make an exception. Setting up mail filters isn't
that difficult.
+1
We don't have subprojects
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the Commons RDF
project?
I don't think we should make an
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:40:54 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the
Commons RDF
project?
I don't think we should make an exception. Setting up mail filters
On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
Now the question is: do we want
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the
Commons
...and it's still the term we are using:
http://commons.apache.org/components.html
You miss my point(s): It's totally clear what a component is,
as defined by Commons. The issue is how it relates to the
Commons project management.
That does not sound like totally clear to me. That sounds
Words without semantics...
...and it's still the term we are using:
http://commons.apache.org/components.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 19/01/2015 15:32,
I wonder how Apache DS deals with this. It's a TLP with lots of jars too.
Gary
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:53:35 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Words without semantics...
...and it's still the term we are using:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:53:35 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Words without semantics...
...and it's still the term we are using:
http://commons.apache.org/components.html
You miss my point(s): It's totally clear what a component is,
as defined by Commons. The issue is how it relates to the
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com
wrote:
I wonder how Apache DS deals with this. It's a TLP with lots of jars too.
Or Maven and Ant... I can't imagine there is a special ML for one 'special'
jar.
Gary
Gary
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Gilles
On 1/19/15 11:21 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:53:35 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Words without semantics...
...and it's still the term we are using:
http://commons.apache.org/components.html
You miss my point(s): It's totally clear what a component is,
as defined by Commons.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de
wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil
40 matches
Mail list logo
