Wearing my old Attic fart hat - something is dead when there is no one left
to turn the light out. Something is inactive when it couldn't pass a vote
to keep the project alive (ie: 3 +1s).
So that's one way to do this. Make a file in SVN. Put each component in it
(include the sandbox perhaps).
On 10/14/13 2:04 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Wearing my old Attic fart hat - something is dead when there is no one left
to turn the light out. Something is inactive when it couldn't pass a vote
to keep the project alive (ie: 3 +1s).
So that's one way to do this. Make a file in SVN. Put each
The nice thing about Hen's solution is, that I expect it to be better
structured. When 20 people begin voting on 30 different components it will
get confusing in that thread. Having one single file which contains the
result of the vote would be very easy.
How do you want to reach non commons
On 10/14/13 9:18 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
The nice thing about Hen's solution is, that I expect it to be better
structured. When 20 people begin voting on 30 different components it will
get confusing in that thread. Having one single file which contains the
result of the vote would be very
+1 to Phil's +1 meaning. :)
On Monday, October 14, 2013, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 10/14/13 9:18 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
The nice thing about Hen's solution is, that I expect it to be better
structured. When 20 people begin voting on 30 different components it
will
get confusing in that
On 10/10/2013 03:31 PM, James Carman wrote:
We definitely need to make sure our naming scheme will work with maven
properly. Hopefully commons-foo:1.0 would supercede
commons-foo:1.0-M1. Again, I really don't care what we call it, as
long as we manage expectations and don't dork up maven.
On 10/10/2013 12:24 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Every now and then I keep getting requests via private mail asking to
release javaflow as it seems to be working for people. Yet I know there is
still so much essential stuff to fix for a 1.0 release.
Crossing over to the other thread: I know on
Hi,
Ate Douma wrote:
On 10/10/2013 12:24 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Every now and then I keep getting requests via private mail asking to
release javaflow as it seems to be working for people. Yet I know there
is still so much essential stuff to fix for a 1.0 release.
Crossing over to the
I like the idea of releasing 0.x versions. A good example is [csv]. I would
have no problem with releasing the current trunk as 0.9. At the moment [csv] is
just another component we don't releaese because we want to come up with a
perfect API (and I take responsibility for that :-)
Benedikt
I've move this into a separate [DISCUSS] thread as I think it needs separate
discussion.
Jörg gave some objections below about using Milestone releases, as I proposed
earlier to support releasing intermediate versions of a not-yet-stabalized
component.
While I understand his problems with
I'm okay with alpha/milestone/rc/whatever. Do we promote them to central
or leave them local? Keeping them in-house might help keep folks from
incorporating them into production code. However I'm okay with publishing
too. Hibernate has done this for years (rc's).
On Thursday, October 10,
I think milestone releases works if you have a clear development
plan and schedule. I've never seen it be the case in Commons. Calling
releases to Maven and dist, Alphas and Betas make more sense for us
IMO.
Gary
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
I've move this
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
I think milestone releases works if you have a clear development
plan and schedule. I've never seen it be the case in Commons. Calling
releases to Maven and dist, Alphas and Betas make more sense for us
IMO.
I don't
On 10/10/2013 03:00 PM, James Carman wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
I think milestone releases works if you have a clear development
plan and schedule. I've never seen it be the case in Commons. Calling
releases to Maven and dist, Alphas and
We definitely need to make sure our naming scheme will work with maven
properly. Hopefully commons-foo:1.0 would supercede
commons-foo:1.0-M1. Again, I really don't care what we call it, as
long as we manage expectations and don't dork up maven.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Ate Douma
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
I think milestone releases works if you have a clear development
plan and schedule. I've never seen it be the case in Commons. Calling
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
I've move this into a separate [DISCUSS] thread as I think it needs separate
discussion.
Jörg gave some objections below about using Milestone releases, as I
proposed earlier to support releasing intermediate versions of a
Am 09.10.2013 21:17, schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
Hi,
I think Phil came up with the idea to try to focus on the components that
we are able to maintain and put all other stuff to dormant. Here is the
list of components that I think really are proper:
- CLI
- Codec
- Collections
- Compress
Hi,
I think Phil came up with the idea to try to focus on the components that
we are able to maintain and put all other stuff to dormant. Here is the
list of components that I think really are proper:
- CLI
- Codec
- Collections
- Compress
- Configuration
- CSV
- Daemon
- DBCP (?)
- Email
-
VFS has no release for a couple of years. Would you consider it as proper?
-D
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
I think Phil came up with the idea to try to focus on the components that
we are able to maintain and put all other stuff to dormant.
Pool and dbcp sounds ok for proper imo
Le 9 oct. 2013 21:20, Dan Tran dant...@gmail.com a écrit :
VFS has no release for a couple of years. Would you consider it as proper?
-D
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi,
I think Phil came up with
Agreed, there are folks working on [pool] and [dbcp] pretty recently, Mark
Thomas and Bill Speirs off the top of my head.
Matt
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote:
Pool and dbcp sounds ok for proper imo
Le 9 oct. 2013 21:20, Dan Tran
What criteria are you using to come up with this list?
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 10/9/2013 12:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hi,
I think Phil came up with the idea to try to focus on the components that
we are able to maintain and put all other stuff to
I've looked at all the proper components and listed all components where
I've seen activity since I'm subscribed to the ML.
2013/10/9 Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com
What criteria are you using to come up with this list?
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
Can we include commit activity and Jira activity in the analysis?
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 10/9/2013 1:04 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
I've looked at all the proper components and listed all components where
I've seen activity since I'm subscribed to the ML.
This isn't really an analysis. This is just the list of components that
belong to proper to me. If you thing that something is missing (for what
ever reason) feel free to add it. It's not like we're putting everything
directly to dormant that's not on the list. I just wanted to get a
discussion
On 10/9/13 12:17 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hi,
I think Phil came up with the idea to try to focus on the components that
we are able to maintain and put all other stuff to dormant. Here is the
list of components that I think really are proper:
- CLI
- Codec
- Collections
- Compress
-
Here is some commit activity:
http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?view=plotfrom=20130101to=20131009path=%2Fcommons%2Fproperplotsort=%24plotsort
But we should to exclude typo fixes and such.
For example:
Dan Tran wrote:
VFS has no release for a couple of years. Would you consider it as proper?
Just because there was no release, does not mean there have been no
development. Check svn if you don't believe.
- Jörg
-
To
That is a good point. Those Commons GPG commits are just Maven black box
updates.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 10/9/2013 1:28 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Here is some commit activity:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Dan Tran wrote:
VFS has no release for a couple of years. Would you consider it as proper?
Just because there was no release, does not mean there have been no
development. Check svn if you don't believe.
I consider
Every now and then I keep getting requests via private mail asking to
release javaflow as it seems to be working for people. Yet I know there is
still so much essential stuff to fix for a 1.0 release.
Crossing over to the other thread: I know on github I would made a 0.x
release already ages ago
I am a active VFS user wishing to have an official VFS 2.1 release :-)
Sorry about the noise.
-Dan
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de
wrote:
Dan Tran wrote:
VFS has no release
33 matches
Mail list logo
