Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the
word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't recall whether
I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it was needed
in the first place, but I think the consensus was that it's better that ASF
takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing but a redirect to
jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed copyrights), so
if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their server under some
other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of old.jspwiki.org ;-). I
cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
/Janne
On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out of
> incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache site and
> our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to Finnish legal
> reasons.
>
> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party
> site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki
> committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an Apache JSPWiki
> perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should have our system
> documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site, even if it's
> duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I would like to get the
> Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much faster than Confluence
> Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache projects to adopt us) but if
> they won't do that, and our only options are (1) hosting our documentation
> off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our documentation on Apache
> w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant, should be evaluated.
>
> Glen
>
> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so
>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>
>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>
>>
>> br,
>> juan pablo
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske <harry.met...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
>>> the incubator forever...
>>>
>>> kind regards,
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>> juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>
>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>
>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been
>>> ages
>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it
>>> safe
>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>
>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included
>>> in
>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> br,
>>>> juan pablo
>>>>
