On 9/23/06, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be "another
Jakarta" (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that
Jakata is always considered a bad example).
On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the
number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by
Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects
(VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same
goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity)
will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP.
I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity
and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the
new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider "Clustering" a good thing.
Having a small group of related projects available through a single
point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing.
I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think Lucene is the best
example to point to, though, since it demonstrates how projects can drift.
What I mean is that something like Hadoop should not be part of Lucene, just
as MINA should not be part of Directory. (I think) I understand how both of
these happened, but still, it's something that a Velocity TLP would do well
to bear in mind.
--
Martin Cooper
Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects
are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta
would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow "lost" there. A
project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is
located somewhere else.
For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net),
and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation
of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation
(surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and
Click seem to be an even match.
So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another
Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number
of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good
thing IMHO.
Best regards
Henning
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was
no
> > stated deadline.
>
> Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month,
> and i gave the vote a full week!
>
> Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)
>
> > I'm +1 and -1.
> >
> > I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
> > necessary, but not unreasonable.
> >
> > I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
> > planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
> > going the wrong direction.
>
> Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under
> your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
> VelocityTools? :)
>
> And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
> that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
> for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite
> projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
> or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
> Velocity.
>
> > If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come
to
> > Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
>
> And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether
> being here would be just about them having the foundation and
> infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If
> community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
> organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any
> Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
> the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
> interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC
> member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
> decisions.
>
> > But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using
things
> > that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
>
> Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
>
> > geir
> >
> >
> > Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
> > >
> > > +1 votes:
> > > Nathan Bubna
> > > Martin van den Bemt
> > > James Mitchell
> > > Henri Yandell
> > > Jorg Schaible
> > > Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> > > Will Glass-Husain
> > > Torsten Curdt
> > > Rony G. Flatscher
> > > Jesse Kuhnert
> > > Dion Gillard
> > > Daniel Rall
> > > Matthijs Lambooy
> > > Niall Pemberton
> > > Claude Brisson
> > > Malcolm Edgar
> > > Christoph Reck
> > >
> > > +0 votes:
> > > -none-
> > >
> > > -1 votes:
> > > -none-
> > >
> > > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
> > > those votes are binding. :)
> > >
> > > thanks, everyone!
> > >
> > > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
> > >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
> > >> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked
us
> > >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to
the
> > >> board. So...
> > >>
> > >> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
> > >> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
> > >>
> > >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the
following
> > >> thread:
> > >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
> > >>
> > >> And the vote happens here:
> > >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> > >> [ ] +0 I don't care
> > >> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development
Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Engineering
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations for Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard P. Feynman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
