On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:31 +0000, Ross Gardler wrote: > 2009/2/23 Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 15:47 +0000, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> 2009/2/13 Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]>: > >> > On 2009-02-12, Robert Burrell Donkin > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 14:24 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> >>> On 2009-02-12, Gavin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > ... > > >> >> it was much easier for me over at googlecode. > >> > > >> > Why is that? > >> > >> Any thoughts? > > > > i liked the short, easy release cycles > > I don't understand what has changed. Build the release and call a > vote. I appreciate on GoogleCode you didn't need to call a vote, but > it's just 3 days delay or am I oversimplifying it?
you're right that it's probably just a matter of attitude over in the commons, the bar for releases was really high (usually a typo in the documentation would be enough to cut another candidate) and over in james, releases often take months to be approved. > > > >> I think a release is in order. Perhaps someone can build a release > >> candidate. > > > > +1 > > > > volunteers? > > In my opinion, this is the problem, not the long release cycle. It's > whether someone has the cycles to do it (we've all had the cycles to > read and comment on this thread, are we asting time?) let's give it a go. unless anyone else jumps in, i'll act as release manager for this one and do the preparation tomorrow > >> > The only thing that is slowing us down is that we are not trying to > >> > move at all. That nobody of us has any clue of where RAT would fit in > >> > is big part of that. I have no idea myself. > >> > >> I'm not sure either, but then it's not really ready to leave the > >> incubator. We need users who are going to add features > > > > RAT works well enough for existing users to have unsufficient motivation > > to code new features > > Existing users within the ASF, but what about beyond it? Just last > week I was with a major open source project that wasn't aware of > potential licence conflicts that I was aware of via Ohloh. They wanted > to know where these conflicts were - RAT, with a little work, could do > that. We need to evangalise about RAT and encourage these people to > use it. cool i think that this probably needs the ontology stuff (but that shouldn't be too hard to add) > The first stage of this is to create a release. +1 - robert
