Hi, here's my +1 (I think I should state it although is clear since I was who open the vote)
2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > Hi, > > seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote > since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any > explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting > vote mail. > > Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have > more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as > important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch > (that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we > don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in > swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest. > > Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here > expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki. > > About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a > "utilities" project it's sure that his release will be separated from > flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have > 1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0 > beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to > start talking about that. > > So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so > what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make > another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us > know following steps. > > Thanks > > > > 2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> > >> For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment. But an overall -1 for the lack of >> specifics in the proposal. >> >> Here are the things that are bothering me: >> >> 1. We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to >> donate >> this code. Were they supposed to mail on this list? Are they going to >> stay involved. We would need a champion in the community if there is >> going >> to be any hope of future Swiz releases. >> 2. Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz >> going >> forward? There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave >> alone >> new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS. The same handful of committers are >> juggling all these things today. There is absolutely no more bandwidth to >> take on more stuff. >> 3. What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is >> brought under Apache Flex. That we endorse it or not? What about all the >> other frameworks? >> 4. What does the Swiz community think of this? Is there a mailing list >> that has a similar discussion going on? Or is there no such community? >> >> Here are the alternatives I could think of: >> a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no >> explicit promises that we will be making any future releases. If there is >> enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases, at >> which point we could give it a separate Flex repo. >> b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork >> it >> to a GitHub repo. If they are able to make at least one release from >> there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex. >> >> I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points and >> resolve them. >> >> Thanks, >> Om >> >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude <d...@atheist.com> wrote: >> >> > Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if >> > that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the >> > best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated >> > otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those >> > frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure if >> > that is possible at all). >> > >> > AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP >> > compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland >> > Zwaga). >> > >> > Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: >> > > I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's >> we're >> > > seeing. >> > > Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe >> after >> > > some discussing with those voting -1? >> > > >> > > I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the >> repo. >> > > I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own >> > > releases and not be part of an SDK release. >> > > >> > > One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if >> a >> > > committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with >> the >> > > implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation >> that >> > > some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of >> > AOP? >> > > Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more >> love >> > > than the other frameworks it could appear to be the "endorsed" >> framework, >> > > which is what I think we are trying to avoid. >> > > >> > > -Alex >> > > >> > > >> > > On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, "Jeff Tapper" <j...@spoon.as> wrote: >> > > >> > >> -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of >> > the >> > >> main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. >> > >> >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM >> > >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex >> > >> >> > >> +1 (binding) >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira >> > >> <carlosrov...@apache.org>wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> After proposal thread >> > >>> (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes >> > >>> the vote thread. >> > >>> >> > >>> This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under >> > >>> Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex >> > >> community. >> > >>> >> > >>> points to take into account: >> > >>> >> > >>> * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de >> SDK >> > >>> with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple >> and >> > >>> well designed. >> > >>> * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's >> optional >> > >>> a NOT part of the main sdk. >> > >>> * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, >> > >>> has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade >> > >>> since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex >> > >>> technology. >> > >>> * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. >> > >>> * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of >> > >>> Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP >> > >>> support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex >> > >>> since it brings something very new to client web technologies and >> that >> > >>> will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time >> > >> weaving). >> > >>> >> > >>> Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: >> > >>> * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same >> situation >> > >>> and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC >> > >>> framework of use. >> > >>> >> > >>> Points to take into account: >> > >>> * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is "what to do with >> it" >> > >>> under Apache Flex umbrella. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Please make your vote. >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks >> > >>> >> > >>> Carlos Rovira >> > >>> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > Director de Tecnología > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > F: +34 912 94 80 80 > http://www.codeoscopic.com > http://www.directwriter.es > http://www.avant2.es > -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
