Has this been posted up yet? Doesn't look like it? Minor grammatical and spelling suggestions below.....
Mark Brouwer wrote: > Hi all, > > Please comment/correct when my view of our progress since the last Board > report doesn't match the collective view, point out spelling/grammar > mistakes, or make remarks about the issues worth mentioning I forgot: > > "The last artifact, the QA framework, has been voted in and landed in > SVN. An automated build environment has been put in place and finally > all outstanding issues from the Sun issue tracking system have been > manually migrated in a large group effort into JIRA. > Being picky should be "to JIRA"..... > The River community agreed to do a first release to show the larger Jini > community it is serious in its efforts. It ain't a very ambitious > release and will be almost an equivalent of the last release done by Sun > but includes the ServiceUI code. This release also allows the River > community to get acquainted and find out about many of the ASF > procedures. No transformation of the com.sun.jini namespace to > org.apache.river will take place, but the River community is aware it > has to do that and will find an opportune moment for that during > incubation. > > As a side effect of the ambitions for the first release discussions on Perhaps as a side effect..... > new functionality don't seem to take off very well, but that time is don't seem to have taken off very well, instead the time has been used > used to discuss the process the River project believes it needs to > establish. Although most committers have expressed their desire to have > code-review before code is being committed, due to complexity of the before code is committed > codebase and the difficulty to test many aspects properly, it seems much > harder to decide to what extend to enforce that. We are in the process to what extent > of finding the right workable process to support those beliefs: > strong/soft RTC, CTR with the expectation committers know when they need > a review up-front, or something completely different. It will be > interesting to see whether the group can come up with a proposal > finally, or that due to tiredness interest in the subject will fade away > and we end up what is likely common with most other ASF projects. > end up with what is likely > US export regulations apply to the River codebase and although discussed > in the very early days we were living under the (wrong) impression that > complying to them only applied when we were about to release. We are complying with them > aware now we had to take care of it even before the code landed in SVN aware now that we should have taken care of it > and we are going to comply as soon as possible." HTH, Dan.
