I'm also not happy with the support/guidance from dev@community regarding
this topic and +1 to move to Github now. I'm not convinced from SF.
Before we are releasing our first release there, please check with the
Apache trademarks first, whether you can still use the name "Camel Extra"
or not. The same for the package name (it has apache and camel in it),
because this project doesn't belong to Apache Extra anymore in the future,
in my opinion.
Best,
Christian
Am 17.09.2015 10:43 schrieb "Raul Kripalani" <r...@evosent.com>:
Agree. From my point of view, if the Camel extras community feels
comfortable with Github, then go for it. It seems like the joint Apache
Extras effort has somewhat disintegrated anyway.
We did our part: having a discussion there and sharing our concerns at
dev@community. So I'm happy with how we dealt with this issue.
Let us know when it's done so we can update the links on the Apache Camel
website.
Raúl.
On 17 Sep 2015 07:50, "Pontus Ullgren" <ullg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello again,
So I tried to reach out to com-dev beginning this month[1] and it seems
to
be a dead end.
Some answers[2] even suggest that it is up to the PMCs.
So in line of the two previous votes[3] [4] I think we should go ahead
and
continue the move to github.
Best regards
// Pontus
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201509.mbox/%3CCABe1WL-mcFvPUmUwjLXmgLUOSSQUrhT5z7Adj2WPVS8NwSQnuA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201509.mbox/%3ccadmm+kcy9c6rgodshexgsrduu7jur06jwcs9yp-hc8mapm6...@mail.gmail.com%3E
[3]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201504.mbox/%3C1391078472.16070484.1428686018450.JavaMail.zimbra%40redhat.com%3E
[4]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201504.mbox/%3C301126299.246793.1429101018000.JavaMail.zimbra%40redhat.com%3E
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 at 19:54 Pontus Ullgren <ullg...@gmail.com> wrote:
While I personally think that is github is superior to what SF offers
(and that bitbucket is superior to github) for camel-extra I don't
think
the choice of hosting company is that big a deal.
Camel-Extra currently uses
* Mailing list provided by nabble (
http://camel-extra.1091541.n5.nabble.com/)
* Jenkins provided by cloudbees (
https://camel-extra.ci.cloudbees.com/
)
* SonarQube provided by SonarQube (
http://nemo.sonarqube.org/dashboard/index/564228)
* Jira for issues provided by Atlassian (
https://camel-extra.atlassian.net/browse/CAMEX)
* End user component documentations are hosted on the main camel
project
wiki
So even back when we where on google code the only thing that it was
used
for was to
provide a wiki for some project specific documentation such as
release
notes and most important
the GIT repo.
So as long as the service provider provides git, a simple way of
hosting
some documentation and
has a good reputation of keeping a good uptime on the service in my
opinion it is not that big a deal
where or what is hosting it. The important thing is that we get this
up
read-write ASAP.
Just my $0.02
// Pontus
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 at 17:59 Raul Kripalani <r...@evosent.com> wrote:
Hi Rob,
I think camel-extras belongs to the Apache Extras [1] umbrella...
That said, I'm not quite sure what's the point of grouping all
"extras"
from all projects under a common ASF umbrella – I'm assuming it's
for
ASF
organisational reasons. It definitely doesn't serve a technical
reason
nor
an administrative one: (a) each Extras project is more closely
related
to
the parent than to all other Extras project in ASF and (b) the roles
in
the
camel-extras "organisation" do show some correlation with the roles
at
Apache Camel, but they are not necessarily tied together, i.e.
there's
no
requirement that a committer in camel-extras has to be a committer
in
Apache Camel, right?
[1] https://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html
Regards,
Raúl.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The way I read it is comdev are doing a mass migration to SF - its
understandable they wouldn’t want multiple targets - so to pick
one
destination for the code move makes sense. However its not clear
that
we
have to keep camel-extra at SF - or why we couldn’t just move it
to
GitHub
ourselves ?
On 4 Sep 2015, at 15:54, Pontus Ullgren <ullg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Victor and David: You are welcome to join the com-dev mailing
list
and
enlighten them.
Here is a link the latest answer on that question :-)
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201507.mbox/%3CBY2PR03MB490B6943E12F5D925203A2E99900%40BY2PR03MB490.namprd03.prod.outlook.com%3E
// Pontus
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 at 16:01 David Karlsen <
davidkarl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why not github?
4. sep. 2015 3:54 p.m. skrev "Victor NOËL" <
victor.n...@linagora.com
:
Are they even aware of the problem with sourceforge?
Maybe someone that is known there (such as a member of an
Apache
Project
;) could tell them before they take the wrong decision?
It's even worse than what I thought because after the Gimp
people
told
SF
to stop doing their shady things, they actually insisted
during
2015:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00097.html
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00098.html
Victor
Le 04/09/2015 15:36, Raul Kripalani a écrit :
Quite frankly, SF would be my last resort. But the Apache
Extras
repositories are governed by the ASF and the consensus seems
to
point
to
SF
rather than Github (which would have been my personal
preference)
or
Bitbucket.
Regards,
*Raúl Kripalani*
Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect,
Open
Source
Integration specialist
http://about.me/raulkripalani |
http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Victor NOËL <
victor.n...@linagora.com
wrote:
I arrive a bit late, but are we sure sourceforge is a good
solution?
After all the fuss about their terrible behaviour by
implanting
adware
and
other spyware in installers available to download there.
It became known with the big complain of the Gimp project
(that
wasn't
even fixed by SourceForge…).
See
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer/
for details.
Victor
Le 04/09/2015 13:29, Pontus Ullgren a écrit :
Do we not already have volunteers in the current set of
contributors
for
the project ?
I for one is willing in continue maintaining the project
once
it
has
been
moved (where ever it is moved).
I think the question right now is the progress of the SF
migration.
// Pontus
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 at 09:18 Henryk Konsek <
hekon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
As far as I know the Apache Extras projects are being
moved to
the...
SourceForge. So we need to find a volunteer willing to
maintain
the
project
after SourceForge migration.
Cheers!
czw., 3.09.2015 o 20:38 użytkownik Pontus Ullgren <
ullg...@gmail.com
napisał:
Have not seen any other updates on the comdev mailing list
no.
Perhaps we should reach out to Daniel Gruno (that seems
to be
in
charge
of
the move) to get a status update for camel-extra.
// Pontus
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 23:57 Raul Kripalani <
r...@evosent.com
wrote:
Hey guys,
Do we have an update on the ASF front about the Apache
Extras
migration?
Users are asking for new releases of camel-extras
components...
I quickly went through the ComDev thread but found no
conclusion.
Maybe I
overlooked an email in that thread. Things tend to get
very
chatty
over
there and there's no clearly marked conclusion email.
Regards,
*Raúl Kripalani*
Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise
Architect,
Open
Source
Integration specialist
http://about.me/raulkripalani |
http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Pontus Ullgren <
ullg...@gmail.com
wrote:
From this thread[1] it seems that Daniel Gruno is the
one
in
charge
for
the move.
However I fail to find any indication on the progress
or
roadmap.
Using Github as a backup plan does NOT[2] seem to be a
option in
the
opinion of the community-dev decision.
Anyway perhaps we should move this discussion to the
camel-dev
mailinglist.
[1]
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev//201507.mbox/%3C559EC097.7000707%40apache.org%3E
[2]
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev//201507.mbox/%3cby2pr03mb490b6943e12f5d925203a2e99...@by2pr03mb490.namprd03.prod.outlook.com%3E
// Pontus
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 at 07:17 Christoph Emmersberger <
cemme...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is there any date when this move is expected? We have
still
the
backup
plan
with Github in place, ...
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Pontus Ullgren <
ullg...@gmail.com
wrote:
Diging through the community development list shows
that it
will
be
moved
to sourceforge along with the rest of the apache extra.
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev//201507.mbox/browser
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:12 Pontus Ullgren <
ullg...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes this has been discussed on the dev list[1][2] and
the
Apache
community
development mailing list [2].
Unfortuantly there does not seem to be any
conclusion on
this
discussion
yet.
// Pontus
[1]
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Moving-camel-extra-to-github-tt5764066.html
[2]
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-camel-extra-moves-forward-tt5765822.html
[3]
http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-community
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 18:53 Tim Dudgeon <
tdudgeon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Now that the Google code site is about to switch to read
only
(
https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/camel-extra/)
I
wondered
what is going to happen to the Camel Extras stuff?
Tim
--
Henryk Konsek
http://about.me/hekonsek
--
Vous utilisez la version libre et gratuite d'OBM, développée
et
supportée
par Linagora.
Contribuez à la R&D du produit en souscrivant à une offre
entreprise.
http://pro.obm.org/ - http://www.linagora.com
--
Vous utilisez la version libre et gratuite d'OBM, développée
et
supportée
par Linagora.
Contribuez à la R&D du produit en souscrivant à une offre
entreprise.
http://pro.obm.org/ - http://www.linagora.com
