+1, and I'm with Brian -- I don't merit inclusion in the PMC as I'm not contributing to the community outside of just helping guide things along. Having been through the Incubator to TLP route before, though, I'm very happy to help with this transition with respect to configuring infrastructure, tying into the ASF mirror system, etc.
One other point -- I would encourage the fledgling PMC to diversify soon-ish. Having been through the process of graduating a generally homogeneous (wrt employer) PMC before, it will serve you well as it encourages communication / decision making via ASF channels. Fortunately, there are committers that are clearly on this path. To be clear, I've no specific concern here -- just a lesson from projects past. OpenJPA is a good community, has good, open communication, has great ties into other ASF projects, and has committers with a healthy dose of ASF experience. You'll do well. :) Best of luck! Eddie ps -- Geir, even Google doesn't know what a "Gavindakeith" is. ;) On 5/4/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Gavindakeith" geir On May 4, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Phill Moran wrote: > Here are two quickly made up thoughts (Google shows no one is using > them at the > moment in open source) > > "Persius" sounds a little like persistence, and is a good old name > > I was thinking "North Sea" - Thinking association with platform (as > in oil > platform) but that is a stretch so how about a Synonym "Dais" > > Okay bring on the storm of "Dumb Idea" emails.... > > Phill > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: May 4, 2007 4:00 PM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation > > While we're on the topic, do you have any compelling new name ideas? > Clearly, if we had a new name handy, it could be advantageous to > create that TLP > and then an OpenJPA subproject from the start. I don't think that > we should hold > up the graduation for this, but it does seem like the thing that's > easier to do > all at once. > > -Patrick > > On 5/4/07, Phill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree with you on the name change and the timing around it. My >> comments are mainly directed towards holding a non-representative >> name >> if other APIs are implemented. >> >> A decision that can be made later along with any necessary >> re-packaging needs >> >> Sincerely, >> Phill >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: May 4, 2007 3:35 PM >> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation >> >>> I see a discontinuity in calling the project OpenJPA if in reality >>> the project implements JDO and so forth. >> >> I agree; there is a logical disconnection here. >> >>> If we can separate the engine from the API and make the API >>> pluggable/selectable >> >> The engine is very well-separated from the API as things stand now, >> and the API is pluggable / selectable... >> >>> and the project is planning on implementing other APIs then a name >>> change seems reasonable as it would not be representative of what we >>> are >> providing. >> >> ... however, currently, the OpenJPA project only supports JPA >> bindings. I'd like to see other bindings for OpenJPA, but as things >> stand right now, things happen to line up nicely. >> >>> If we are to go down this path then I would further suggest we >>> separate the engine and implementing APIS into separate >>> jars/packages as it is wasteful an potentially dangerous to package >>> all implementations >> together. >> >> This can actually be done today. The only distribution that the >> OpenJPA community has published to date is a monolithic jar, but >> given >> how the build process works today, it'd be fairly trivial to do >> something > else. >> >> I don't think that we should change the name right now. We (the >> OpenJPA >> community) have built a name around the community, and there are >> currently no plans that I know of to add new APIs on top of >> OpenJPA. I >> think that we can always change the name of the underlying engine >> at a >> later time with minimal disruption. >> >> If we do decide to change the name, I'd strongly suggest that we >> create a TLP with some other more-flexible name, and then >> simultaneously create a project within that TLP called 'OpenJPA', >> which publishes a distribution that looks much like the current >> incubating releases. Then, new API bindings could be started as >> sub-projects > within that TLP, rather than actually creating separate projects. >> >> -Patrick >> >> On 5/4/07, Phill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Without getting any nastier let me explain. I see a discontinuity in >>> calling the project OpenJPA if in reality the project implements JDO >>> and so >> forth. >>> If we can separate the engine from the API and make the API >>> pluggable/selectable and the project is planning on implementing >>> other APIs then a name change seems reasonable as it would not be >>> representative of >> what we are providing. >>> If we are to go down this path then I would further suggest we >>> separate the engine and implementing APIS into separate >>> jars/packages as it is wasteful an potentially dangerous to package >>> all implementations >> together. >>> >>> That is all this little piece of the community has to say. >>> >>> Phill >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dain Sundstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: May 4, 2007 2:50 PM >>> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation >>> >>> On May 4, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Phill Moran wrote: >>> >>>> Would we then not have to change the overall name from JPA to >>>> openPersistence or some such? >>> >>> That would suck. I see no reason we would "have to change" the >>> name. >>> It is a choice of the community. >>> >>>> Why not let another project lift out the engine and adapt >>>> JDO/SDO/ETC and maybe we remerge the projects later. >>> >>> I would hate to see a fork. >>> >>>> Maybe this idea works if we can fully separate the API from the >>>> persistence engine as it does not make sense to go into production >>>> with several unused API being deployed. >>> >>> It is already separated. >>> >>> -dain >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Patrick Linskey >> 202 669 5907 >> >> > > > -- > Patrick Linskey > 202 669 5907 >
