On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:43:11PM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
With a lot of due respect Roy, I think the argument that unless one
helps with infra one does not have a right to belly-ache is absurd. Not
everyone is infra-savvy and/or infra-interested. I refuse to accept that
not
On 12/22/05, Thomas Dudziak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder whether there isn't another problem here: that of the
(missing) oversight of the PMC that originally voted the project into
incubation. For instance, while I'm on the DB PMC and voted e.g. Derby
into incubation (just to pick an
On 12/23/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:01:14PM -0800, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Incubator Graduation Check List
---
[ ] Move svn repo from incubator to new location
[ ] *** ? *** requests that infrastructure move
On 12/23/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
If any ASF PMC believes it is in the best interest of the Foundation to
accept a podling and they are willing to dedicate resources (people) -
then anyone on the Incubator PMC has no standing to challenge that
decision. When a PMC
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC)
and I do have a
robert burrell donkin wrote:
IMHO it would be better to ask pmc'er to vote not for a passive sponsorship
but an active promise to commit resources to provide oversight for the
podling.
When asked to vote for a new podling on the WS PMC, I never understood a
+1 to mean something different?
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another
On Dec 22, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On 12/21/2005 7:22 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Folks,
Right now any PMC can automatically ok projects into incubator. How
about we change that rule? So that the only pmc that can approve a
proposal is the incubator PMC.
Sam,
it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that
the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
better checked by outsiders (Incubator PMC), since the insiders (WS
PMC) may be biased.
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a
project in without approval of the
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:19 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That's because an Apache project is an EFFORT of the ASF. It is not
some diploma that people receive at the end of graduation.
Everything
done at the ASF is an Apache project. Some are
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:01:14PM -0800, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Incubator Graduation Check List
---
Should this document include package name changes for Java projects,
from foo.bar to org.apache? (And similar namespace changes for XML
files, etc.)
--
On Dec 23, 2005, at 4:07 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire thread: people
are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects. How? On what
basis?
In my mind, there are 2 considerations: What is in the best interest
of the PMC, and what
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Sam,
it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that
the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
better checked by outsiders (Incubator PMC), since the
Every TLP has an explicit charter when created by the board in the
resolution that creates them. How they interpret that and change
with the shifting sands of technology style is up to them
geir
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Sounds good to me (hopefully all
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I am no longer convinced of this. Having the Incubator PMC there as
a check and balance is a good thing as it requires engagement from
others interested in this aspect of ASF life. It prevents one
individual or one PMC
Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it
needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it. right? AND if the PMC does
not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right?
You know where i am going with this, if you read between the lines...
-- dims
On
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I am no longer convinced of this. Having the Incubator PMC there as
a check and balance is a good thing as it requires engagement from
others interested in this aspect
On Dec 23, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it
needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it. right? AND if the PMC does
not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right?
You know where i am going with
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:38AM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it
needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it. right? AND if the PMC does
not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right?
You know where i am
On 23.12.2005, at 16:57, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
...
I think that there's little downside to this. A check on the
Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the
board in the event that they believed their
Hi, general.
Some time ago I asked about situation when none of commiters of project
active anymore. The situation in FTPServer project is much funny, and
tragically in same time.
1st of December I asked this mail list what to do with such projects.
2nd of December I asked ftpserver-dev about
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 12/23/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:01:14PM -0800, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Incubator Graduation Check List
---
[ ] Move svn repo from incubator to new location
[ ] *** ? *** requests
I'll integrate the rest of the suggestions so far (thanks, Justin,
Robert, and Yoav), then would like to take a shot at adding it to the
web site. The best fit for this check list would be a new subsection in
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Exitting+the+Incubator
--On December 23, 2005 9:32:16 AM -0800 Jean T. Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll integrate the rest of the suggestions so far (thanks, Justin,
Robert, and Yoav), then would like to take a shot at adding it to the web
site. The best fit for this check list would be a new subsection in
I'd like summarize the discussion so far, with comments
regarding my own PoV...
Q: Is the Incubator out of control?
A: No, it's not. The Incubator is actually working out
quite well, and performing its duties. Yes, occasionally
some things slip through the cracks, but out of
Sorry to change the subject...
Can someone make a definitive statement on whether or not code
history is brought into our repo from elsewhere when a podling brings
code over?
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Sorry to change the subject...
Can someone make a definitive statement on whether or not code history
is brought into our repo from elsewhere when a podling brings code over?
I can't make a definitive statement but stdcxx didn't (although
I would have liked it
--On December 23, 2005 1:15:44 PM -0500 Geir Magnusson Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to change the subject...
Can someone make a definitive statement on whether or not code history
is brought into our repo from elsewhere when a podling brings code over?
I say no. We should only take
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 23, 2005 9:32:16 AM -0800 Jean T. Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll integrate the rest of the suggestions so far (thanks, Justin,
Robert, and Yoav), then would like to take a shot at adding it to the web
site. The best fit for this check list would
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
[...]
What did I miss? changes? corrections?
thanks,
-jean
Incubator Graduation Check List
---
[...]
[ ] Project updates the STATUS file to reflect graduation
FWIW, references to the STATUS file have recently been replaced
by
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 23, 2005 1:15:44 PM -0500 Geir Magnusson Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to change the subject...
Can someone make a definitive statement on whether or not code
history
is brought into our repo from elsewhere when a
On Dec 21, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: Excuse me, but don't we have a -1 on this vote thread already? Is the idea to get Dain to change his vote by piling on more +1? Or have I completely missed the Tao of the voting process in
On Dec 23, 2005, at 5:14 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
Because Tuscany was proposed to the
--On December 23, 2005 12:47:26 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Q: The Incubator controls who leaves... who controls who
enters? It seems like both are needed.
A: Yes, and there are controls for who enters as well.
Applicants must be sponsored by a current
Martin Sebor wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
[...]
What did I miss? changes? corrections?
thanks,
-jean
Incubator Graduation Check List
---
[...]
[ ] Project updates the STATUS file to reflect graduation
FWIW, references to the STATUS file have
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Incubator Graduation Check List
---
[ ] Move svn repo from incubator to new location
...
[ ] Project removes the incubator disclaimer README at the top level
This might be another derbyism creeping in. The derby mentor started us
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
[...]
Actually, the STATUS file was in the context of the repo move:
[ ] Move svn repo from incubator to new location
...
[ ] Project updates the STATUS file to reflect graduation
In other words, the STATUS file in the top level directory of the
Martin Sebor wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
[...]
Actually, the STATUS file was in the context of the repo move:
[ ] Move svn repo from incubator to new location
...
[ ] Project updates the STATUS file to reflect graduation
In other words, the STATUS file in the top level
On 12/23/05, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 23, 2005 1:15:44 PM -0500 Geir Magnusson Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to change the subject...
Can someone make a definitive statement on whether or not
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 23, 2005 12:47:26 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Q: The Incubator controls who leaves... who controls who
enters? It seems like both are needed.
A: Yes, and there are controls for who enters as well.
Applicants must be
On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC
approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are
created. Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a part
of the ASF is
On Saturday 24 December 2005 00:53, Sergey Vladimirov wrote:
Hi, general.
Some time ago I asked about situation when none of commiters of project
active anymore. The situation in FTPServer project is much funny, and
tragically in same time.
1st of December I asked this mail list what to do
On Saturday 24 December 2005 06:26, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
However, I'm concerned with altering the perception that everything in our
code repositories was done on our lists. Instead, we'll now be conveying
all of the oddball things that happened externally - be it at codehaus,
SourceForge,
On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:51, Sergey Vladimirov wrote:
No, the project was not retired. It was suspended due to none of
commiters were available.
We would like to stay as Apache Incubator Project for some time (and move
from Incubator), but we have problems which cann't be solved by
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
I only committed changes to the one source file I changed.
The instructions at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html#Using+a+local+Forrest+installation
are excellent and worked well, but svn status showed many diffs on the
built side, which didn't make
On Dec 23, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 23, 2005 1:33:34 PM -0800 Roy T. Fielding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with Justin on these points. We must have a clean
break when
the code comes from a private source repository, since the history
may
contain
47 matches
Mail list logo
