+1
...ant
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org
wrote:
Hi,
The EasyAnt community would like to graduate as an subproject of Ant.
The Ant PMC has just accepted:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.orgwrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edward J. Yoon edwardy...@apache.org
wrote:
could you please close the Create MRQL tasks in the Infra Jira until
the situation has been cleared up. Whenever this all has been
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:01 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edward J. Yoon
edwardy
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Edward J. Yoon edwardy...@apache.orgwrote:
The required action has been taken, so let me close this thread again.
I apologize again for my mistake.
The Sponsors are changed as following:
== Champion ==
* Alex Karasulu akarasulu AT apache DOT org
==
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
nour.moham...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.orgwrote:
We're also missing Ant Elder from the Nominated
Please find that the MRQL mailing lists have been created and are
ready to be used for further discussion:
d...@mrql.incubator.apache.org
u...@mrql.incubator.apache.org
priv...@mrql.incubator.apache.org
Would everyone named on the proposal please go subscribe to them, and
happy MRQL'ing.
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
following a thread on private@, I would like to bring the discussion
on how we vote on nominated IPMC members.
We had the case were one person was nominated and received three +1.
Another voter had concerns
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Matthias Friedrich m...@mafr.de wrote:
On Monday, 2013-03-25, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
[...]
IMO it's the podlings who need to make sure they have enough mentor
energy available
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Now, you might argue that mentoring is a lot more than voting, but we
could create another bottleneck in getting release votes through,
requiring votes from incubator PMC members who are not particularly
focused on the
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Your second suggestion sounds like the thing to do to me - separating
IPMC-ship and Mentor-ship - that would solve several of the problems
we've being having including this one, it would open up a much bigger
pool
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Or it might 'work', but some might feel that this large,
diffuse, group, operating by majority rules is either inconsistent with
Apache policy or a bad example for the podlings.
Thats more how i see it. Using
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 27 March 2013 15:54, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, i propose we have an experiment [1] where we try having a mentor
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system
with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this
consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's
the window.
Please stop with all of these exaggerations and try to
self-moderate- half of the volume in these debates is all
you talking to yourself.
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:18 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
No more so than they already had.
It does Joe, let me give you a more clear example.
Lets imagine i've done something that you deem shows i'm a terrible
incubator mentor, and its not the first time.
There's a big
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
As Doug points out, votes are structured away
from the status quo- we don't ever vote to
continue on with previously agreed to issues
just to circumvent the voting process.
Ok thanks Joe and Doug. So to be
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Matthias Friedrich m...@mafr.de wrote:
As someone who is relatively new to the ASF and who's first behind the
scenes contact with Apache was the incubation process, I can tell that
this is absolutely true. Podlings find themselves in a kafkaesque
world where
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Chris,
What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the
problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a
common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem
is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily, I
understand, in relation to releases.)
Hi Noah, i suggested that one of
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored? Whenever I
look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit of
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote:
On 3 April 2013 14:41, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored?
Whenever I
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Just a thought.
Chris' solution says 'make mentors the initial PMC'. They vote in other
project team members as appropriate to be peers. This creates a positive
egalitarian setup which mirrors that of a PMC, which is a good
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote:
Having said that, here's an idea that builds on your proposal. There is
already the opportunity to name the board as the sponsoring organisation.
Why not say where the board is willing to sponsor the project it can
+1 (non-binding)
...ant
On 6/27/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
On 6/26/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Synapse incubator would like to ask the Incubator PMC to
release the
Synapse project into the Apache Web Services PMC. Synapse heavily
A (non-binding) +1 from me to say thanks for the Tuscany votes.
FYI, the README.txt files in each example in the examples folder have
incorrect URLs to the website example pages. Eg,
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Basic should be
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/basic.html. Other
How timely...i've just spent the last hour or two today looking at AsyncWeb
after Dan Diephouse telling me about it at ApacheCon in Dublin. I'm
interested how this could be used by Tuscany or Synapse, so moving it to
Apache sounds good to me.
...ant
On 7/3/06, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, ant elder wrote:
A (non-binding) +1 from me to say thanks for the Tuscany votes.
Huh what? Exactly what semantics attach to a +1 is always a muddy
discussion, but IMNSHO they really ought not be thanks for something
unrelated. Its utterly confusing.
Thanks!
LSD
+1 (non-binding)
All the packaging etc of this release looks ok to me (though I still can't
get the web service sample to work, I'll raise a JIRA about that).
This vote has been going a week now, could any more of you with binding
votes spare a bit of time to review and vote on the release?
Sure ok, I'll volunteer to have a go. What doc do you have in mind?
...ant
On 7/30/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the organisation's starting to improve a little which should make it
easier to collaborate. i can think of quite a few tasks many of which
are editorial and
A non-binding +1 from me. Any more IPMCers have time to check out and vote
on this so we get the magic 3?
...ant
On 10/24/06, Andrew Borley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have held a vote on tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org to publish a new
milestone release of
the Tuscany C++ implementation. The
On 11/3/06, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if I could draw your attention to this vote ratification
please?
Nobody has raised any show-stopping objections to any of the content. On
the
other hand, nobody has voted yet. I have been reading all the helpful
suggestions
Attapattu
Asankha Perera
Tijs Rademakers
Ant Elder
Ruwan Linton
Saminda Aberuwan
Davanum Srinivas
Jaliya Ekanayake
Glen Daniels
The code is here:
http://people.apache.org/~pzf/synapse/0.90-RC1/
and has been tagged here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/synapse/tags/0.90RC1
What is the current recommended best practice for a podling to vote in a new
committer?
The Voting in a new committer section at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
it suggests a private discussion followed by a public pro-forma vote, and it
has a link to discussion thread about this
Preferred userid: slaws
Full name: Simon Laws
Forwarding email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Requested Karma for: ws-tuscany
ICLA is on file
Result email and vote thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg13211.html
Many thanks,
...ant
On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rfeng
Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
New Revision: 511225
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=511225
Log:
[sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding
FWIW, on the incubating projects I've helped with AFAIR there's never been
anyone who complained the separate incubator repository was confusing or
caused any problems. Also, most of the time we build in offline mode so the
performance of the separate repository isn't really an issue.
There is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/17/07, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Niclas,
Here the scenario is a project with all committers from one employer
and regular releases.
Are you talking about Tuscany still? Not all the Tuscany committers are from
the one employer. There's 25 committers
We're still looking for a couple more votes on this, anyone got some time to
have a look?
...ant
On 5/2/07, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me
Paul
On 5/2/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Tuscany community held a vote to release Apache Tuscany SDO version
IPMCers, the Apache Tuscany project asks your permission to release the
Tuscany Java SCA 0.90-incubating release.
The tuscany-dev list vote for the release passed with 7 +1s:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg18279.html
The artifacts, including the binary and source
On 5/29/07, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/27/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IPMCers, the Apache Tuscany project asks your permission to release the
Tuscany Java SCA 0.90-incubating release.
The tuscany-dev list vote for the release passed with 7 +1s:
http
After more than 72 hours this vote has passed with 3 +1s from:
Robert Burrell Donkin
Davanum Srinivas
Paul Fremantle
Thanks for voting,
...ant
On 5/30/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
One more question on this topic as I have also seen differing views from
different members of the Incubator PMC on: Who can and who can not
send the account setup mail to root?
The view that counts is from
The Apache Tuscany team are pleased to announce the 0.90-incubating release
of the Java SCA project.
Apache Tuscany provides a runtime based on the Service Component
Architecture. SCA is a set of specifications aimed at simplifying SOA
Application Development which are being standardized at
On 6/7/07, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My apologies if I'm resurrecting something that was discussed extensively.
It has been pointed out to me that:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57
The actual votes are held on the private lists. I'm not sure I
understand that.
Preferred userid: ... agrove
Full name:... Andrew Grove
Forwarding email address: ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Requested UNIX groups: ws-tuscany
CLA is on file.
Vote: http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg13754.html
Note, I believe I'm authorised to make this
On 6/30/07, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thread has died down with no consensus, so I'm going to try again.
Regarding how a Podling can get a new to Apache committer. First,
the rules:
1. Only the Incubator PMC can vote in a new committer, with three +1
and no -1 votes
+1
...ant
On 7/12/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please can I make another appeal to IPMC members to consider the
referenced
vote for karma for Fuhwei and cast their binding votes. We have consensus
from the project itself, but we need the IPMC members binding votes
before
we
On 7/16/07, Xavier Hanin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We held a vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] to publish a second
alpha release of Ivy.
The vote email thread is available here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01175.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00685.html
In
Looks ok to me now so +1.
...ant
On 7/18/07, Venkata Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Robert,
Thanks for taking a look and posting your observations.
- The javadocs are not supposed to be there in the maven repo. They
seemed to have crept in by mistake. I have now deleted them.
- I
+1
...ant
On 7/20/07, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any other IPMC member wants to vote?
On 7/13/07, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ServiceMix podling respectfully requests the Incubator to consider
its graduation to a Top Level Project. Please vote on
+1 from me.
Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, its
preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
single LICENSE file, and have src and binary distro's unpack into different
folders.
...ant
On 7/30/07, Graham Turrell (gmail) [EMAIL
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/31/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg,
its
preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a
single LICENSE file
+1
...ant
On 8/6/07, kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Tuscany project requests permission of the IPMC to release the SDO
Java 1.0-incubating release. The vote thread is here ...
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg21169.html
Since this is a small delta on the
+1
...ant
On 8/13/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache Tuscany project request IPMC permission to release the Java
DAS beta1 (1.0-incubating-beta1). The vote thread is here ...
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg21549.html
Since this is a
Dear IPMCers,
The Apache Tuscany project asks your permission to release the Tuscany Java
SCA 0.99-incubating release.
The tuscany-dev list vote for the release passed with 6 +1s and no -1s:
http://marc.info/?l=tuscany-devm=118829361008651w=2http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL
Passed with no -1s and 3 +1s from Davanum Srinivas, Paul Fremantle, and Ant
Elder (over on tuscany-dev).
...ant
On 8/28/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear IPMCers,
The Apache Tuscany project asks your permission to release the Tuscany
Java SCA 0.99-incubating release
The Apache Tuscany team are pleased to announce the 0.99-incubating
release of the Java SCA project.
Apache Tuscany provides a runtime based on the Service Component
Architecture. SCA is a set of specifications aimed at simplifying SOA
Application Development which are being standardized at OASIS
On 9/15/07, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 14, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Hi,
We are using Apache Rampart 1.3 to enable ws security into the ws-
binding-axis2 module for Apache Tuscany v1.0 which we hope to
release in a week. Using Rampart seems to bring
On 9/16/07, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I don't see a an unencumbered BouncyCastle distribution which is not
encumbered.
Is there any reason we can't just make one? The license seems ok for that:
http://www.bouncycastle.org/licence.html. Is it just the one class in the
The Tuscany project requests permission of the IPMC to release the Java SCA
1.0-incubating release.
The SVN tag for the release is:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.0-RC3a/
The artifacts are available for review at:
Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 3:06 AM, ant elder wrote:
The Tuscany project requests permission of the IPMC to release the
Java SCA
1.0-incubating release.
The SVN tag for the release is:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany
On 9/21/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Tuscany project requests permission of the IPMC to release the Java SCA
1.0-incubating release.
The SVN tag for the release is:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.0-RC3a/
The artifacts are available
The Apache Tuscany team are delighted to announce the 1.0 release of
the Java SCA project.
Apache Tuscany provides a runtime environment based on the Service
Component Architecture (SCA). SCA is a set of specifications aimed at
simplifying SOA application development. These specifications are
+1.
...ant
On 9/22/07, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Due to some license issues pointed out from Kevan and Matthieu as well as
some TCK failures when run in Geronimo and the bouncycastle discussions,
we had to rebuild CXF 2.0.2.
Note: the main changes between this and the first
-- Forwarded message --
From: ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sep 25, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Account Request - Simon Nash - Tuscany (incubating)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear root,
Please create an id
I'm not so sure any of these issues are serious enough to block the release
so I'm going still to give it a +1.
Most of the missing license headers are not in significant files and the top
level LICENSE is there in the distributions which is the main thing, and I
don't think
What are people thoughts on how strict reviews should be when saying an
issue is serious enough to block a podling release?
Current incubator release policy is described at:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
Some things said there are:
No release made by a
+1 from me.
I can't see any issues that haven't already been mentioned here or over on
tuscany-dev.
...ant
On 9/27/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache Tuscany project request IPMC permission to release the Java
DAS beta2 (1.0-incubating-beta2). The vote thread is here
On 9/28/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007 05:12, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Personally, that's my take on it, and what I've done historically.
I agree with Yoav, but would like to add that I personally have different
standards for different podlings, i.e.
-
On 9/28/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007 16:16, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
IMHO the incubator PMC doesn't care much about technical issues in
podling releases, at least for early releases.
This is an important observation. The reviewers has no
On 9/28/07, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/28/07, Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we care about is that podlings get the legal stuff right, and
letting releases out without this being ok is not an option, due to
potential legal risks.
I thought projects
On 10/2/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/2/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden
style reviewer role.
When it comes to legal issues related to a release, the warden role is
the
more
Over in the Tuscany Incubator project we have been tidying up the loose ends
before we vote in the project community to ask the IPMC to recommend Tuscany
as top level project to the Apache Board.
We have been part of the incubator project for quite some time now and we
believe we have
Dear root,
Please create an id for Amita Vadhavkar on the Tuscany project under
Incubation.
Preferred userid:amita
Full name:Amita Vadhavkar
Forwarding email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Requested Karma for:ws-tuscany
ICLA is on file.
Votes:
Andy Grove agrove at apache dot org
ant elder antelder at apache dot org
Brady Johnson bjohnson at apache dot org
Frank Budinsky frankb at apache dot org
Ignacio Silva-Lepe
On 10/13/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/12/07, Mike Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
snip
On 10/12/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
2. grrr SOA! i'm unclear what this really means in this case. though
i've been
On 10/13/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
So bringing together all the comments so far gives something like:
...establish a Project Management Committee
On 10/17/07, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I wonder if we could shorten this just a little. How about:
...establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
and maintenance of open-source software for distribution at no charge
to the public, that simplifies the
On 10/19/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't use [RESULT] in a thread that is still on-going. There may
have been a result in the Tuscany PPMC, but there is no result yet from
the
Incubator PMC.
This is the Tuscany community vote result thread which was only on the
On 10/19/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Fremantle wrote:
I think Tuscany is ready to graduate because:
1) I understand it to have met the base requirements of the IPMC in
terms
of
independent committers
Apparently a bare minimum, with very little active work from
On 10/20/07, Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/20/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...This is the Tuscany community vote result thread which was only on
the
tuscany-dev list but seems to have inadvertently been replied to to the
general@ list
BTW
On 10/12/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Tuscany podling respectfully requests the Incubator to consider its
graduation to a Top Level Project.
While incubating Tuscany has made 14(!) releases, voted in 19 new
committers, survived conflicts, formed its PPMC, learned how to govern
On 10/21/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ant Elder wrote:
Apparently a bare minimum, with very little active work from
independents?
If the bare minimum is the 3 legally independent committers as defined
in
the Incubator policy documents then Tuscany has more than
+1
...ant
On 10/29/07, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Following up on the proposal discussed at [1] I'd like to call for a vote
to
incubate Buildr. Buildr is a simple and intuitive build system for Java
projects written in Ruby (and based on Rake), please see the complete
On 10/31/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Matthieu Riou wrote:
there are at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no
single
company or entity that is vital to the success of the project
What does legally independent mean? Not paid
On Nov 16, 2007 2:10 PM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007, at 2:09 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi, Kevan.
Thank you for the review. We have fixed the issue and republished a
RC5a at:
SVN Tag:
On Nov 22, 2007 7:09 PM, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007 9:14 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would agree with reviewing committers at graduation, but how do we
implement that?
I would say that this depends on the judgment of the mentors, and it
On Dec 5, 2007 3:57 AM, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 03 December 2007 23:09, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Here is my +1. Paul
+1,
With a note that IBM's contribution to the project *seems* to be a
worryingly
large proportion. I still vote +1 as I am convinced that the WS
On Dec 11, 2007 2:15 PM, Alexey Petrenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2007/12/11, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to make sure I understand what is happening here - Yoko is going
away/ending and getting
merged into Geronimo and CXF?
Yes.
SY, Alexey
The proposal mentions continuing
On Dec 13, 2007 11:50 AM, Michael Baessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for
permission to publish a new bug fix release of Apache UIMA.
This release contains bug fixes of the Apache UIMA 2.2.0 release published
in
August 2007. For details
On Dec 15, 2007 9:21 PM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007, at 1:43 PM, sebb wrote:
[Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
provide a pointer in the vote mails]
The NOTICE file in uimaj-2.2.1-incubating-bin.zip refers to the
Dear root,
Please create an id for Mark Combellack on the Tuscany project under
Incubation.
Preferred userid:mcombellack
Full name: Mark Combellack
Forwarding email address:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Requested Karma for: ws-tuscany
ICLA is on
On Dec 17, 2007 5:44 PM, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top
directory
of the source (and binary)
Looks ok to me so +1. Was going to say the Incubator disclaimer is missing
in the artifacts but then found it in the README file, should probably move
that to a separate DISCLAIMER file for later releases.
...ant
On Dec 31, 2007 7:20 PM, Chris Mattmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Incubator
Dear root,
Please create an id for Rajini Sivaram on the Tuscany project under
Incubation.
Preferred userid: rsivaram
Full name: Rajini Sivaram
Forwarding email address:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Requested Karma for: ws-tuscany
ICLA
On Jan 14, 2008 3:29 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Kitching wrote:
Is a project under incubation allowed to import its existing sources
(not under the Apache license) into the Apache svn? And after
graduation from the incubator, is it ok for the svn history to
I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
distributed are OK. The ${pom.name} is changed by the build process so the
generated artifact has the proper name, for example, the jar built for
wsdl2java ends up with a NOTICE file containing Apache Tuscany SCA
WSDL2Java Tool, see
On Jan 24, 2008 9:39 PM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/01/2008, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi sebb
Thank you for the detailed review.
Can you tell me what you mean by
On Jan 24, 2008 4:57 PM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/01/2008, ant elder [EMAIL
I'm not sure those votes on cxf-dev count in this vote unless they vote in
this thread, no mater though as there are enough votes here now.
...ant
On Jan 26, 2008 5:56 PM, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a quick update while the vote is open.
Jim Jagielski and Jeff
Looks ok to me, +1.
...ant
On Jan 25, 2008 9:42 PM, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We held a vote on cxf-dev to release a new version of CXF. This version
is pretty much just a big bug fix rollup compared to 2.0.3 fixing over
50 JIRA issues reported by users and bugs encountered
301 - 400 of 507 matches
Mail list logo
