Re: [Result] Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
The vote thread can be viewed here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200704.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Matthias On 4/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > I'll open a vote thread on MyFaces' dev list. we got 13 +1 votes on the MyFaces dev list. I'll follow up with a vote on general @ incubator to get approval for the graduation as a MyFaces subproject. I'll keep you posted. -Matthias > Greetings, > Matthias > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Trinidad PPMC members and Trinidad community, > > > > we have discussed during the last months (time by time, not permanent) > > that Trinidad is ready to graduate from the Apache Incubator; we also > > managed to get releases of the artifacts out. Main question is (see > > the original email threads) should Trinidad be a subproject of Apache > > MyFaces or should it be a TLP. > > > > Please cast your votes (only one is possible): > > > > [ ] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > > [ ] graduate as a TLP > > [ ] not ready to graduate, because... > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The dependency will be also the same, if we (MyFaces) go the proposed > > > route w/ Trinidad as the base for Tomahawk². > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As long as the community is somewhat similar (at least there are > > > > people in both communities), I'm +1 for taking it in under MyFaces. My > > > > only problem with the subproject approach is that when RCF comes out, > > > > we'll have two sub projects where one sub project depends on the other > > > > - kind of awkward. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Simon, > > > > > I like your arguments and after reading this thread, I like the idea > > > > > of a subproject better than a TLP too. I wanted to comment so > > > > > ya'll will know there are more people reading the thread and > > > > > forming an opinion than have been commenting thus far. :) > > > > > - Jeanne > > > > > > > > > > Simon Lessard wrote: > > > > > > Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is > > > > > > still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I > > > > > > think > > > > > > it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and > > > > > > MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in > > > > > > library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be > > > > > > kept/improved by developers. > > > > > > > > > > > > It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP > > > > > > right > > > > > > away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and > > > > > > Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be > > > > > > TLP(s), > > > > > > then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be > > > > > > achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My 2¢, > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. > > > > > >> He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when > > > > > >> RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV > > > > > >> list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the > > > > > >> best, for now. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -Matthias > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation > > > > > >> > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then > > > > > >> > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both > > > > > >> > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > -- Adam > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > Sorry for the one in all reply.. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF > > > > > >> implementation. > > > > > >> > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the > > > > > >> possible overlap of the > > > > > >
Re: [Result] Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
Hi, I'll open a vote thread on MyFaces' dev list. we got 13 +1 votes on the MyFaces dev list. I'll follow up with a vote on general @ incubator to get approval for the graduation as a MyFaces subproject. I'll keep you posted. -Matthias Greetings, Matthias On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Trinidad PPMC members and Trinidad community, > > we have discussed during the last months (time by time, not permanent) > that Trinidad is ready to graduate from the Apache Incubator; we also > managed to get releases of the artifacts out. Main question is (see > the original email threads) should Trinidad be a subproject of Apache > MyFaces or should it be a TLP. > > Please cast your votes (only one is possible): > > [ ] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > [ ] graduate as a TLP > [ ] not ready to graduate, because... > > > -Matthias > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The dependency will be also the same, if we (MyFaces) go the proposed > > route w/ Trinidad as the base for Tomahawk². > > > > -Matthias > > > > On 4/11/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As long as the community is somewhat similar (at least there are > > > people in both communities), I'm +1 for taking it in under MyFaces. My > > > only problem with the subproject approach is that when RCF comes out, > > > we'll have two sub projects where one sub project depends on the other > > > - kind of awkward. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Simon, > > > > I like your arguments and after reading this thread, I like the idea > > > > of a subproject better than a TLP too. I wanted to comment so > > > > ya'll will know there are more people reading the thread and > > > > forming an opinion than have been commenting thus far. :) > > > > - Jeanne > > > > > > > > Simon Lessard wrote: > > > > > Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is > > > > > still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I > > > > > think > > > > > it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and > > > > > MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now. > > > > > > > > > > Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in > > > > > library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be > > > > > kept/improved by developers. > > > > > > > > > > It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP > > > > > right > > > > > away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and > > > > > Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be > > > > > TLP(s), > > > > > then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be > > > > > achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My 2¢, > > > > > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. > > > > >> He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. > > > > >> > > > > >> Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when > > > > >> RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. > > > > >> > > > > >> Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV > > > > >> list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. > > > > >> > > > > >> The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. > > > > >> > > > > >> But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the > > > > >> best, for now. > > > > >> > > > > >> -Matthias > > > > >> > > > > >> On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation > > > > >> > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then > > > > >> > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both > > > > >> > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- Adam > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > Sorry for the one in all reply.. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF > > > > >> implementation. > > > > >> > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the > > > > >> possible overlap of the > > > > >> > > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in > > > > >> community of the JSF > > > > >> > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different > > > > >> users and different developers > > > > >> > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone > > > > >> interested in components is not > > > > >> > > interested in coding on the JSF implementat
[Result] Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
we got 7 votes for "graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community" and one +1 for graduation ;) thanks for voting. I'll open a vote thread on MyFaces' dev list. Greetings, Matthias On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Trinidad PPMC members and Trinidad community, we have discussed during the last months (time by time, not permanent) that Trinidad is ready to graduate from the Apache Incubator; we also managed to get releases of the artifacts out. Main question is (see the original email threads) should Trinidad be a subproject of Apache MyFaces or should it be a TLP. Please cast your votes (only one is possible): [ ] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... -Matthias On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The dependency will be also the same, if we (MyFaces) go the proposed > route w/ Trinidad as the base for Tomahawk². > > -Matthias > > On 4/11/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As long as the community is somewhat similar (at least there are > > people in both communities), I'm +1 for taking it in under MyFaces. My > > only problem with the subproject approach is that when RCF comes out, > > we'll have two sub projects where one sub project depends on the other > > - kind of awkward. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Simon, > > > I like your arguments and after reading this thread, I like the idea > > > of a subproject better than a TLP too. I wanted to comment so > > > ya'll will know there are more people reading the thread and > > > forming an opinion than have been commenting thus far. :) > > > - Jeanne > > > > > > Simon Lessard wrote: > > > > Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is > > > > still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I > > > > think > > > > it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and > > > > MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now. > > > > > > > > Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in > > > > library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be > > > > kept/improved by developers. > > > > > > > > It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP > > > > right > > > > away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and > > > > Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be > > > > TLP(s), > > > > then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be > > > > achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho. > > > > > > > > > > > > My 2¢, > > > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. > > > >> He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when > > > >> RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV > > > >> list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. > > > >> > > > >> The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. > > > >> > > > >> But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the > > > >> best, for now. > > > >> > > > >> -Matthias > > > >> > > > >> On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation > > > >> > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then > > > >> > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both > > > >> > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. > > > >> > > > > >> > -- Adam > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > Sorry for the one in all reply.. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF > > > >> implementation. > > > >> > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the > > > >> possible overlap of the > > > >> > > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in > > > >> community of the JSF > > > >> > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different > > > >> users and different developers > > > >> > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone > > > >> interested in components is not > > > >> > > interested in coding on the JSF implementation). > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this > > > >> situation > > > >> (if you are aware of these > > > >> > > signs you can watch out for it) > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. > > > >> > > > > > >> >
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
> > And a "jakarta-style" JSF components project. > > Let's assume we start the "myfaces commons" stuff in the near future, > this "JSF components TLP" could have the following subprojects: > -Tomahawk > -Tobago > -Trinidad > -commons (non-renderkit-goodies) > > Martin, you are the man that know best about Jakarta, what are your > thoughts on that? > I won't bore you with the details that don't matter in this discussion and I won't state here that I know best, just because I am VP of Jakarta. First of all : - Jakarta is very big with about 109 projects and almost everyone at the ASF is committer, yes even you Matthias. - Jakarta has big PMC. In our scenario committers are not automatically on the PMC (there are projects doing that). Besides the benefits of being on the PMC (legal protection, binding votes on release, etc) you also have the obligation to give oversight to the project you are on the PMC for. Let's sketch a MyFaces scenario, with me as a potential committer. - I send a lot of patches for Trinidad - You get sick and tired of me and start a committer vote, so I can start applying patches myself. - I am a committer on the MyFaces TLP now. Even though I don't care about the JSF impl, I am committer there (ignoring svn karma rules that may have been set up) - If I end up on the PMC I am only interested in representing Trinidad (in fact I am just a Trinidad committer), so in fact I am not representing and giving oversight to the complete MyFaces TLP project. - The disconnect has happened between oversight and what is happening in the project. - Multiply above by many times and also don't assume people end up on the PMC and add a highly moving community to the mix (which means, important people become inactive and some new blood enters. - If a lot of "old timers" become inactive without looking for replacements and keeping the PMC in a good size, projects are going to have a hard time, new people don't have a possibility to make new releases (not enough votes) or don't know how to properly create releases, etc ,etc Not saying this is going to happen to MyFaces, just a scenario that is at Jakarta and also happens at smaller projects. So any symptoms of that are going to emerge at MyFaces, my advice is to fix the situation with going TLP for that subproject or making the PMC healthy again. Another problem with "umbrella" projects is that the board is not aware of any problems, dead code, etc, unless the chair or community writes that in the board report. So in fact you are (unintentionally) hiding possible problems. Hence the huge size of most Jakarta board reports to prevent hiding. Mvgr, Martin
Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
+1 to start graduating :) Mvgr, Martin Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > Hello Trinidad PPMC members and Trinidad community, > > [X] graduate as a TLP >
Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
[X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... On 12/04/07, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > [ ] graduate as a TLP > [ ] not ready to graduate, because... > > > On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > > [ ] graduate as a TLP > > [ ] not ready to graduate, because... > > > > Simon Lessard wrote: > > > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > > > [ ] graduate as a TLP > > > [ ] not ready to graduate, because... > > > > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > > >> > > >> Craig > > >> > > >> PS: Note that "binding" is only relevant on release votes, where > it's > > >> a PMC member doing the voting. For procedural issues (like this > one), > > >> all committers are equal. > > >> > > > > > > -- Grant Smith
Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
[X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > [ ] graduate as a TLP > [ ] not ready to graduate, because... > > Simon Lessard wrote: > > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > > [ ] graduate as a TLP > > [ ] not ready to graduate, because... > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > >> > >> Craig > >> > >> PS: Note that "binding" is only relevant on release votes, where it's > >> a PMC member doing the voting. For procedural issues (like this one), > >> all committers are equal. > >> > > > -- Grant Smith
Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
[X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... Simon Lessard wrote: > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community > [ ] graduate as a TLP > [ ] not ready to graduate, because... > > > On 4/11/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community >> >> Craig >> >> PS: Note that "binding" is only relevant on release votes, where it's >> a PMC member doing the voting. For procedural issues (like this one), >> all committers are equal. >> >
Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
[X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... Simon Lessard wrote: [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... On 4/11/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community Craig PS: Note that "binding" is only relevant on release votes, where it's a PMC member doing the voting. For procedural issues (like this one), all committers are equal.
Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
[X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... On 4/11/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community Craig PS: Note that "binding" is only relevant on release votes, where it's a PMC member doing the voting. For procedural issues (like this one), all committers are equal.
Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community Craig PS: Note that "binding" is only relevant on release votes, where it's a PMC member doing the voting. For procedural issues (like this one), all committers are equal.
Re: VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
[X] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community +1 (binding) [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... -Matthias
VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
Hello Trinidad PPMC members and Trinidad community, we have discussed during the last months (time by time, not permanent) that Trinidad is ready to graduate from the Apache Incubator; we also managed to get releases of the artifacts out. Main question is (see the original email threads) should Trinidad be a subproject of Apache MyFaces or should it be a TLP. Please cast your votes (only one is possible): [ ] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community [ ] graduate as a TLP [ ] not ready to graduate, because... -Matthias On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The dependency will be also the same, if we (MyFaces) go the proposed route w/ Trinidad as the base for Tomahawk². -Matthias On 4/11/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As long as the community is somewhat similar (at least there are > people in both communities), I'm +1 for taking it in under MyFaces. My > only problem with the subproject approach is that when RCF comes out, > we'll have two sub projects where one sub project depends on the other > - kind of awkward. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Simon, > > I like your arguments and after reading this thread, I like the idea > > of a subproject better than a TLP too. I wanted to comment so > > ya'll will know there are more people reading the thread and > > forming an opinion than have been commenting thus far. :) > > - Jeanne > > > > Simon Lessard wrote: > > > Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is > > > still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I > > > think > > > it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and > > > MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now. > > > > > > Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in > > > library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be > > > kept/improved by developers. > > > > > > It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP > > > right > > > away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and > > > Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be > > > TLP(s), > > > then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be > > > achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho. > > > > > > > > > My 2¢, > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. > > >> He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. > > >> > > >> Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when > > >> RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. > > >> > > >> Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV > > >> list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. > > >> > > >> The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. > > >> > > >> But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the > > >> best, for now. > > >> > > >> -Matthias > > >> > > >> On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation > > >> > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then > > >> > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both > > >> > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. > > >> > > > >> > -- Adam > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > Sorry for the one in all reply.. > > >> > > > > >> > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF > > >> implementation. > > >> > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the > > >> possible overlap of the > > >> > > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in > > >> community of the JSF > > >> > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different > > >> users and different developers > > >> > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone > > >> interested in components is not > > >> > > interested in coding on the JSF implementation). > > >> > > > > >> > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this > > >> situation > > >> (if you are aware of these > > >> > > signs you can watch out for it) > > >> > > > > >> > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. > > >> > > > > >> > > Mvgr, > > >> > > Martin > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Matthias Wessendorf > > >> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > > >> > > >> further stuff: > > >> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > >> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > -- Matthias W
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
The dependency will be also the same, if we (MyFaces) go the proposed route w/ Trinidad as the base for Tomahawk². -Matthias On 4/11/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As long as the community is somewhat similar (at least there are people in both communities), I'm +1 for taking it in under MyFaces. My only problem with the subproject approach is that when RCF comes out, we'll have two sub projects where one sub project depends on the other - kind of awkward. regards, Martin On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Simon, > I like your arguments and after reading this thread, I like the idea > of a subproject better than a TLP too. I wanted to comment so > ya'll will know there are more people reading the thread and > forming an opinion than have been commenting thus far. :) > - Jeanne > > Simon Lessard wrote: > > Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is > > still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I > > think > > it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and > > MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now. > > > > Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in > > library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be > > kept/improved by developers. > > > > It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP > > right > > away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and > > Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be > > TLP(s), > > then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be > > achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho. > > > > > > My 2¢, > > > > ~ Simon > > > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. > >> He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. > >> > >> Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when > >> RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. > >> > >> Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV > >> list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. > >> > >> The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. > >> > >> But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the > >> best, for now. > >> > >> -Matthias > >> > >> On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation > >> > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then > >> > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both > >> > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. > >> > > >> > -- Adam > >> > > >> > > >> > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > Sorry for the one in all reply.. > >> > > > >> > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF > >> implementation. > >> > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the > >> possible overlap of the > >> > > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in > >> community of the JSF > >> > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different > >> users and different developers > >> > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone > >> interested in components is not > >> > > interested in coding on the JSF implementation). > >> > > > >> > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this > >> situation > >> (if you are aware of these > >> > > signs you can watch out for it) > >> > > > >> > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. > >> > > > >> > > Mvgr, > >> > > Martin > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Matthias Wessendorf > >> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > >> > >> further stuff: > >> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > >> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > >> > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
As long as the community is somewhat similar (at least there are people in both communities), I'm +1 for taking it in under MyFaces. My only problem with the subproject approach is that when RCF comes out, we'll have two sub projects where one sub project depends on the other - kind of awkward. regards, Martin On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Simon, I like your arguments and after reading this thread, I like the idea of a subproject better than a TLP too. I wanted to comment so ya'll will know there are more people reading the thread and forming an opinion than have been commenting thus far. :) - Jeanne Simon Lessard wrote: > Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is > still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I > think > it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and > MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now. > > Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in > library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be > kept/improved by developers. > > It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP > right > away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and > Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be > TLP(s), > then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be > achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho. > > > My 2¢, > > ~ Simon > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. >> He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. >> >> Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when >> RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. >> >> Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV >> list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. >> >> The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. >> >> But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the >> best, for now. >> >> -Matthias >> >> On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation >> > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then >> > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both >> > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. >> > >> > -- Adam >> > >> > >> > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > Sorry for the one in all reply.. >> > > >> > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF >> implementation. >> > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the >> possible overlap of the >> > > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in >> community of the JSF >> > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different >> users and different developers >> > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone >> interested in components is not >> > > interested in coding on the JSF implementation). >> > > >> > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this >> situation >> (if you are aware of these >> > > signs you can watch out for it) >> > > >> > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. >> > > >> > > Mvgr, >> > > Martin >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh >> >> further stuff: >> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Simon, I like your arguments and after reading this thread, I like the idea of a subproject better than a TLP too. I wanted to comment so ya'll will know there are more people reading the thread and forming an opinion than have been commenting thus far. :) - Jeanne Simon Lessard wrote: Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I think it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now. Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be kept/improved by developers. It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP right away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be TLP(s), then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho. My 2¢, ~ Simon On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the best, for now. -Matthias On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. > > -- Adam > > > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry for the one in all reply.. > > > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF implementation. > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the possible overlap of the > > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in community of the JSF > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different users and different developers > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone interested in components is not > > interested in coding on the JSF implementation). > > > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this situation (if you are aware of these > > signs you can watch out for it) > > > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. > > > > Mvgr, > > Martin > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
On 4/11/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I think it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now. Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be kept/improved by developers. sounds like you also prefer the subproject. It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP right away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be TLP(s), then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho. MyFaces is the TLP currently for almost all JSF stuff. it has three subprojects: -jsf impl -tomahawk -tobago (I'd consider the impl as a subproject as well) Shale (a jsf framework) is it's own TLP I'd not say, that Shale is a loner! There is also JSF-stuff in portals and even in cocoon. Perhaps the best for now is, going as a subproject of Apache MyFaces and start a discussion on the "future" of MyFaces. I can see the value of a Apache MyFaces project, that cares about JSF IMPL only. And a "jakarta-style" JSF components project. Let's assume we start the "myfaces commons" stuff in the near future, this "JSF components TLP" could have the following subprojects: -Tomahawk -Tobago -Trinidad -commons (non-renderkit-goodies) Martin, you are the man that know best about Jakarta, what are your thoughts on that? For now, I think it's worth to graduate to be a Apache MyFaces subproject. -Matthias My 2¢, ~ Simon On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. > He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. > > Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when > RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. > > Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV > list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. > > The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. > > But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the > best, for now. > > -Matthias > > On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation > > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then > > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both > > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry for the one in all reply.. > > > > > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF > implementation. > > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the > possible overlap of the > > > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in > community of the JSF > > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different > users and different developers > > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone > interested in components is not > > > interested in coding on the JSF implementation). > > > > > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this situation > (if you are aware of these > > > signs you can watch out for it) > > > > > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. > > > > > > Mvgr, > > > Martin > > > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > > further stuff: > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I think it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now. Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be kept/improved by developers. It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP right away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be TLP(s), then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho. My 2¢, ~ Simon On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the best, for now. -Matthias On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. > > -- Adam > > > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry for the one in all reply.. > > > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF implementation. > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the possible overlap of the > > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in community of the JSF > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different users and different developers > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone interested in components is not > > interested in coding on the JSF implementation). > > > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this situation (if you are aware of these > > signs you can watch out for it) > > > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. > > > > Mvgr, > > Martin > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing. He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project. Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set. Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment. The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta. But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the best, for now. -Matthias On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. -- Adam On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for the one in all reply.. > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF implementation. > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the possible overlap of the > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in community of the JSF > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different users and different developers > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone interested in components is not > interested in coding on the JSF implementation). > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this situation (if you are aware of these > signs you can watch out for it) > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. > > Mvgr, > Martin > -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Ok, I'll start the vote for TLP vs. subproject here later today. And yes, there are more PPMC members. -Matthias On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Vote on this list, asking people if they want TLP or as a subproject for MyFaces. Since I suppose there are more people on the PPMC than just the 4 people in the discussion. Mvgr, Martin Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > So, are the next steps to do a vote here, to graduate and being a > subproject of the MyFaces project ? > > After that I think the MyFaces PMC needs to vote on accepting Trinidad > as a subproject > > Last step is, letting Incubator PMC vote on approve the graduation. > > Right ? > > If yes, I'll start the vote here on graduation. > > -M -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Hi Martin, component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in community of the JSF implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different users and different developers (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone interested in components is not interested in coding on the JSF implementation). that is already the case, I think w/in MyFaces. Some are more interested in the IMPL; some are more in the components. Most of the devs are interested in both. From my perspective, I can say that my interest is the JSF impl and Trinidad. I am also very interested in getting the MyFaces commons and Tomahawk2 stuff done. I am not that much interested in Tobago. -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets. -- Adam On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sorry for the one in all reply.. Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF implementation. Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the possible overlap of the component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in community of the JSF implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different users and different developers (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone interested in components is not interested in coding on the JSF implementation). Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this situation (if you are aware of these signs you can watch out for it) Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. Mvgr, Martin
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Vote on this list, asking people if they want TLP or as a subproject for MyFaces. Since I suppose there are more people on the PPMC than just the 4 people in the discussion. Mvgr, Martin Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > So, are the next steps to do a vote here, to graduate and being a > subproject of the MyFaces project ? > > After that I think the MyFaces PMC needs to vote on accepting Trinidad > as a subproject > > Last step is, letting Incubator PMC vote on approve the graduation. > > Right ? > > If yes, I'll start the vote here on graduation. > > -M
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Sorry for the one in all reply.. Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF implementation. Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the possible overlap of the component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in community of the JSF implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different users and different developers (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone interested in components is not interested in coding on the JSF implementation). Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this situation (if you are aware of these signs you can watch out for it) Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces. Mvgr, Martin
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Not sure how this effects the discussion about the next steps,
regarding the graduation.
Please use a new thread for new topics.
Thanks,
Matthias
On 4/10/07, Jijun Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In trinidad, we have some code snippet that uses exception as part of
message string instead of a throwable parameter.
For example in
incubator\trinidad\trunk\trinidad\trinidad-impl\src\main\java\org\apache\myfaces\trinidadinternal\context\external\ServletExternalContext.java
public class ServletExternalContext extends ExternalContext
{
public ServletExternalContext(final ServletContext servletContext,
final ServletRequest servletRequest, final ServletResponse
servletResponse)
{
...
catch (final Exception e)
{
if (_LOG.isWarning())
{
_LOG.warning("Failed to set character encoding " + e);
}
}
}
}
Should it actually be _LOG.warning("Failed to set character encoding ",
e); ?
Jijun Wang
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
In trinidad, we have some code snippet that uses exception as part of
message string instead of a throwable parameter.
For example in
incubator\trinidad\trunk\trinidad\trinidad-impl\src\main\java\org\apache\myfaces\trinidadinternal\context\external\ServletExternalContext.java
public class ServletExternalContext extends ExternalContext
{
public ServletExternalContext(final ServletContext servletContext,
final ServletRequest servletRequest, final ServletResponse
servletResponse)
{
...
catch (final Exception e)
{
if (_LOG.isWarning())
{
_LOG.warning("Failed to set character encoding " + e);
}
}
}
}
Should it actually be _LOG.warning("Failed to set character encoding ",
e); ?
Jijun Wang
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
So, are the next steps to do a vote here, to graduate and being a subproject of the MyFaces project ? After that I think the MyFaces PMC needs to vote on accepting Trinidad as a subproject Last step is, letting Incubator PMC vote on approve the graduation. Right ? If yes, I'll start the vote here on graduation. -M On 4/9/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the other hand, if Trinidad wants to be a (Dare I say "The"?) > general purpose component set, then MyFaces community acceptance is > probably a good target to hit. That's going to happen better as part > of the MyFaces community rather than as an independent TLP. The > ad-hoc approach taken thus far for Tomahawk leaves something to be > desired in my opinion, so there's an opportunity available. that's my personal feeling, we (Trinidad) should go. I've the feeling, that a subproject is the best choice. > What I said was that the developers of Tomahawk have expressed an > interest in using Trinidad technology for Tomahawk for JSF 1.2. > Tomahawk is a loose collection of generic components with very little > tying the various components together. Some components are strong, > and others are weak. Each was authored without much thought to how > it fits in with the others, or how to provide for common > functionality. That was not the case with Trinidad. > > Trinidad provides infrastructure for building components that Tomahawk > does not.Just as the proposed RCF project uses Trinidad, Tomahawk > could be made to use Trinidad. +1 that was the main point in the related discussion on the myfaces dev list. > It could very well be that the best solution for Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 > is to start with Trinidad and integrate into it those worthwhile > pieces of Tomahawk for JSF 1.1. That's one way Tomahawk 2 > developement could go, but it's certainly not the only way. It's a > way that I personally favor, but I am only one of the MyFaces PMC > members. I am in your boat, Mike. > Trinidad isn't fundementally incompatible with Tomahawk -- if there > are areas where the two don't work well together, there's no reason > to think that these cannot be resolved.. Furthermore, developers on > both projects have expressed strong interest in resolving any problem > areas. also a tomahawk2, based on Trinidad could close the gab (not really a big gab there) > point :-) When I suggest that Trinidad will benefit by being part > of the greater MyFaces community, that's really what I mean :-) I > think the converse is also true. +1 > If it's a matter of one project merging into the other, however, I > think it probably makes more sense for Trinidad to join MyFaces and > not MyFaces to join Trinidad :-) yes. > Well, we're not schizophrenic at MyFaces yet, so we're still "other > issue" free :-) It's true that a TLP won't make any technical > difference.However, trying to join two communities is harder than > splitting an existing community. I'd like to see Trinidad as a súbproject of Apache MyFaces. -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
On the other hand, if Trinidad wants to be a (Dare I say "The"?) general purpose component set, then MyFaces community acceptance is probably a good target to hit. That's going to happen better as part of the MyFaces community rather than as an independent TLP. The ad-hoc approach taken thus far for Tomahawk leaves something to be desired in my opinion, so there's an opportunity available. that's my personal feeling, we (Trinidad) should go. I've the feeling, that a subproject is the best choice. What I said was that the developers of Tomahawk have expressed an interest in using Trinidad technology for Tomahawk for JSF 1.2. Tomahawk is a loose collection of generic components with very little tying the various components together. Some components are strong, and others are weak. Each was authored without much thought to how it fits in with the others, or how to provide for common functionality. That was not the case with Trinidad. Trinidad provides infrastructure for building components that Tomahawk does not.Just as the proposed RCF project uses Trinidad, Tomahawk could be made to use Trinidad. +1 that was the main point in the related discussion on the myfaces dev list. It could very well be that the best solution for Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 is to start with Trinidad and integrate into it those worthwhile pieces of Tomahawk for JSF 1.1. That's one way Tomahawk 2 developement could go, but it's certainly not the only way. It's a way that I personally favor, but I am only one of the MyFaces PMC members. I am in your boat, Mike. Trinidad isn't fundementally incompatible with Tomahawk -- if there are areas where the two don't work well together, there's no reason to think that these cannot be resolved.. Furthermore, developers on both projects have expressed strong interest in resolving any problem areas. also a tomahawk2, based on Trinidad could close the gab (not really a big gab there) point :-) When I suggest that Trinidad will benefit by being part of the greater MyFaces community, that's really what I mean :-) I think the converse is also true. +1 If it's a matter of one project merging into the other, however, I think it probably makes more sense for Trinidad to join MyFaces and not MyFaces to join Trinidad :-) yes. Well, we're not schizophrenic at MyFaces yet, so we're still "other issue" free :-) It's true that a TLP won't make any technical difference.However, trying to join two communities is harder than splitting an existing community. I'd like to see Trinidad as a súbproject of Apache MyFaces. -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
... FWIW, I think Trinidad is more compatible with Tomahawk then Tobago is... they don't work perfectly together, but I'd very much like to see the incompatibilities resolved. there was also an idea of a myfaces "commons" lib, which contains non-renderkit features like validators and converters or the selectItems component. This lib should also take the benefits of Trinidad, like the plugins, to generate stuff like the tags and facelets support. Whether we should merge the components - I don't know. But I do think we could get some code sharing and common framework work applied. (State saving, skinning, and client-side validation come to mind). yes, using the framework bits, instead of a *merge*. So, I'd prefer a subproject to a TLP. -- Adam > > > On 4/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1.. > > > > Thing to decide now is TLP or as subproject of MyFaces. > > > > Main thing is focus to decide on what to do : > > > > - People on MyFaces equally care about and work on Trinidad > > - People on Trinidad equally care about MyFaces > > > > MyFaces == the code base, not the TLP project. People working on Trinidad wouldn't necessarily be > > interested in working on the MyFaces code base. > > > > Giving oversight in an umbrella project will get harder and harder over time, which in the end does > > end up in a fragmented PMC. Which means that people on the PMC just have focus on eg MyFaces, > > tomahawk, Tobago or Trinidad. If you are a on the PMC you should care about all of these subprojects. > > > > In short : I favor TLP. > > > > Mvgr, > > Martin > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > on our march reports, Jukka was asking: > > > > > > > > > Things to do before graduation? > > > > > > > > > checking the checklist (briefly) it looks like we are "set" ... > > > > > > -M > > > > > > On 3/26/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > Hello Martin, > > >> > > > >> > your email states that this group should at least manage to get the > > >> > release of the plugins out. I did. Currently this group is waiting for > > >> > an approval to release the CORE as well. > > >> > > >> was approved and already released :-) > > >> > > >> > > > >> > One item, we need to check is > > >> > > > >> > "Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidlines" > > >> > > > >> > I will look at MyFaces, how we do it there, shouldn't be that big deal. > > >> > > >> posted to /www/people.apache.org/dis/incubator, as suggested here > > >> > > >> > @GUMP: we use(d) continuum (was reseted currently) > > >> > that should be ok?! > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > What is your current thinking about this group? > > >> > Start a vote? Fix the missing items? Wait for approval for CORE ? > > >> > > >> So, what is the next step ? > > >> A vote here on this list ? > > >> > > >> I think, we also need to run a vote on the MyFaces PMC, to accept > > >> Trinidad as one of their subprojects. I'll do that vote as well, when > > >> time comes ;-) > > >> > > >> -Matthias > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks! > > >> > Matthias > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 2/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > In short : according to me they are.. Any feedback and additions > > >> appreciated.. On note : I like to > > >> > > see that at least the plugins get a release before we start a vote > > >> on dev (and I expressed below > > >> > > that you are targetting to have a release of core before leaving > > >> the incubator, although that could > > >> > > be a misunderstanding) > > >> > > > > >> > > If everyone agrees on dev, we start a vote on the incubator > > >> general list and after that on the > > >> > > MyFaces private list. Exit strategy probably needs to be discussed > > >> with the MyFaces crowd (like > > >> > > mailinglists) and they probably need to have votes on people on > > >> the trinidad ppmc list that are not > > >> > > yet on the MyFaces PMC (but that's up to the MyFaces PMC). I'll > > >> subscribe to the private myfaces > > >> > > list (in case you didn't know : I can as a member, which doesn't > > >> actually mean that I am on that PMC > > >> > > or have a binding vote there). > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > The very long version : > > >> > > > > >> > > To determine if Trinidad is ready to leave the incubator I took > > >> > > > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Exiting+the+Incubator > > >> and tried to > > >> > > answer all the questions. The first 3 on that page are actually > > >> the last ones, since I am treating > > >> > > them more as general conclusions. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Legal > > >> > > > > >> > > * All code ASL'ed > > >> > > Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-355 it > > >> is solved. Most important is that > > >> > > before the release everything is ok, so that check needs to be > > >> done before a release (eg by using > > >> > > RA
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
... Even if there is interest, a TLP would not prevent a merge of the two, unless Trinidad doesn't want to or the MyFaces PMC doesn't want to. If all Tomahawk developers would like to merge with Trinidad and Trinidad wants to and the MyFaces PMC doesn't, there are other issues :) We started to discuss to use Trinidad's API and framework bits as the base for Tomahawk 2. That doesn't mean that we merge the two sets of components. I guess the result would be also a "clean-up" in Tomahawk2 (the version for JSF 1.2) ... -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Martin v.d.B., I spent a bit of time answering your various points. I've answered them below, but I think that's hiding the real question. "What does Trinidad want to be when it grows up?" Where does the Trinidad community see future development going? Is the plan to simply finish debugging what's out there? Is the idea to add more components? Is the goal to become the "best" general purpose JSF component set? Or is there a more narrow focus on what it means to be "Trinidad"? I think either possiblity is good. Tobago shows that a narrow-focused JSF component set can be useful and successful. TLP makes good sense for a narrow-focused JSF component set. On the other hand, if Trinidad wants to be a (Dare I say "The"?) general purpose component set, then MyFaces community acceptance is probably a good target to hit. That's going to happen better as part of the MyFaces community rather than as an independent TLP. The ad-hoc approach taken thus far for Tomahawk leaves something to be desired in my opinion, so there's an opportunity available. I think the "Next Step" should be taken by considering "where do you want to go today." (Yes, I've got a warped sense of humor. It's late and I spent the day with the inlaws.) On 4/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just a disclaimer : this is not an attack on you personally or a statement the the MyFaces Project is broken, just like to prevent that it becomes broken :) Mike Kienenberger wrote: > I'm in favor of MyFaces for Trinidad. I would like to see Trinidad > as the basis for Tomahawk JSF 1.2. So in this sense you are saying that we just incubated Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 ? What I said was that the developers of Tomahawk have expressed an interest in using Trinidad technology for Tomahawk for JSF 1.2. Tomahawk is a loose collection of generic components with very little tying the various components together. Some components are strong, and others are weak. Each was authored without much thought to how it fits in with the others, or how to provide for common functionality. That was not the case with Trinidad. Trinidad provides infrastructure for building components that Tomahawk does not.Just as the proposed RCF project uses Trinidad, Tomahawk could be made to use Trinidad. It could very well be that the best solution for Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 is to start with Trinidad and integrate into it those worthwhile pieces of Tomahawk for JSF 1.1. That's one way Tomahawk 2 developement could go, but it's certainly not the only way. It's a way that I personally favor, but I am only one of the MyFaces PMC members. When Trinidad becomes TLP it is for them to decide if they want that to happen (based on your proposal), if they go to the MyFaces TLP, it is not just their call. Yes That's why one is an autonomous TLP and one is a not-so-autonomous subproject. Yet ASF still has subprojects coming in from incubation, so autonomy must not be the only consideration used. When Trinidad applied for incubation, they sought out and received sponsorship by MyFaces. At least at the time of entry into incubation, the Trinidad community felt there were advantages to being part of the MyFaces community. There's benefit to being part of a wider community, especially when you're a small project. Trinidad has a lot to offer. Only three of the Trinidad committers are not already actively involved in MyFaces Tomahawk, so there's not only functional overlap, but community overlap. Which in the end (you gave an example of that) will end up in not a decision being made at all. That's pretty cynical. I gave an example of an incompatible technology being made into a subproject and little attempt being made on either side to try to resolve the incompatiblities. Tobago isn't only incompatible with Tomahawk. It's incompatible with every JSF component set, including Trinidad. Trinidad isn't fundementally incompatible with Tomahawk -- if there are areas where the two don't work well together, there's no reason to think that these cannot be resolved.. Furthermore, developers on both projects have expressed strong interest in resolving any problem areas. I think what the Tobago example does show is that, if anything, MyFaces is possibly too willing to let subprojects govern themselves if the subproject has no interest in integrating with the "mainstream" MyFaces community. Your message implies (to me) that you think Trinidad may be losing the ability to have meaningful management of the code they are working on if they join MyFaces -- I don't see that being the case. I hope no one sees this as some kind of power trip where MyFaces or me personally is trying to "assimulate" Trinidad into the Myfaces "Collective." I've made it a point to not "pile on" into the JSF incubating project initial committer lists. I've tried to help out here and there, but I'm not actually using Trinidad yet myself (my primary client wil
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
On 4/7/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm in favor of MyFaces for Trinidad. I would like to see Trinidad as the basis for Tomahawk JSF 1.2. However, if there is no interest in merging Tomahawk and Trinidad, then going with a TLP would be better. Right now, Tobago is in the state you described below -- You're either using Tobago (and no other component set), or you're using Tomahawk and other component sets. It's next to impossible to have oversight over both projects since Tobago is mutually-exclusive of other component sets. At one point, the Tobago people were interested in making Tobago more compatible with Tomahawk and other component sets, but discussion on how that would happen ever materialized beyond my initial questions. FWIW, I think Trinidad is more compatible with Tomahawk then Tobago is... they don't work perfectly together, but I'd very much like to see the incompatibilities resolved. Whether we should merge the components - I don't know. But I do think we could get some code sharing and common framework work applied. (State saving, skinning, and client-side validation come to mind). So, I'd prefer a subproject to a TLP. -- Adam On 4/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1.. > > Thing to decide now is TLP or as subproject of MyFaces. > > Main thing is focus to decide on what to do : > > - People on MyFaces equally care about and work on Trinidad > - People on Trinidad equally care about MyFaces > > MyFaces == the code base, not the TLP project. People working on Trinidad wouldn't necessarily be > interested in working on the MyFaces code base. > > Giving oversight in an umbrella project will get harder and harder over time, which in the end does > end up in a fragmented PMC. Which means that people on the PMC just have focus on eg MyFaces, > tomahawk, Tobago or Trinidad. If you are a on the PMC you should care about all of these subprojects. > > In short : I favor TLP. > > Mvgr, > Martin > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > on our march reports, Jukka was asking: > > > > > > Things to do before graduation? > > > > > > checking the checklist (briefly) it looks like we are "set" ... > > > > -M > > > > On 3/26/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Hello Martin, > >> > > >> > your email states that this group should at least manage to get the > >> > release of the plugins out. I did. Currently this group is waiting for > >> > an approval to release the CORE as well. > >> > >> was approved and already released :-) > >> > >> > > >> > One item, we need to check is > >> > > >> > "Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidlines" > >> > > >> > I will look at MyFaces, how we do it there, shouldn't be that big deal. > >> > >> posted to /www/people.apache.org/dis/incubator, as suggested here > >> > >> > @GUMP: we use(d) continuum (was reseted currently) > >> > that should be ok?! > >> > > >> > > >> > What is your current thinking about this group? > >> > Start a vote? Fix the missing items? Wait for approval for CORE ? > >> > >> So, what is the next step ? > >> A vote here on this list ? > >> > >> I think, we also need to run a vote on the MyFaces PMC, to accept > >> Trinidad as one of their subprojects. I'll do that vote as well, when > >> time comes ;-) > >> > >> -Matthias > >> > >> > >> > Thanks! > >> > Matthias > >> > > >> > > >> > On 2/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > In short : according to me they are.. Any feedback and additions > >> appreciated.. On note : I like to > >> > > see that at least the plugins get a release before we start a vote > >> on dev (and I expressed below > >> > > that you are targetting to have a release of core before leaving > >> the incubator, although that could > >> > > be a misunderstanding) > >> > > > >> > > If everyone agrees on dev, we start a vote on the incubator > >> general list and after that on the > >> > > MyFaces private list. Exit strategy probably needs to be discussed > >> with the MyFaces crowd (like > >> > > mailinglists) and they probably need to have votes on people on > >> the trinidad ppmc list that are not > >> > > yet on the MyFaces PMC (but that's up to the MyFaces PMC). I'll > >> subscribe to the private myfaces > >> > > list (in case you didn't know : I can as a member, which doesn't > >> actually mean that I am on that PMC > >> > > or have a binding vote there). > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > The very long version : > >> > > > >> > > To determine if Trinidad is ready to leave the incubator I took > >> > > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Exiting+the+Incubator > >> and tried to > >> > > answer all the questions. The first 3 on that page are actually > >> the last ones, since I am treating > >> > > them more as general conclusions. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Legal > >> > > > >> > > * All code ASL'ed > >> > > Looking at https://issues.a
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Just a disclaimer : this is not an attack on you personally or a statement the the MyFaces Project is broken, just like to prevent that it becomes broken :) Mike Kienenberger wrote: > I'm in favor of MyFaces for Trinidad. I would like to see Trinidad > as the basis for Tomahawk JSF 1.2. So in this sense you are saying that we just incubated Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 ? When Trinidad becomes TLP it is for them to decide if they want that to happen (based on your proposal), if they go to the MyFaces TLP, it is not just their call. Which in the end (you gave an example of that) will end up in not a decision being made at all. If you think the Tomahawk developers / community have more in common than with the MyFaces developers, you should probably join Trinidad ;). Not the other way around.. > > However, if there is no interest in merging Tomahawk and Trinidad, > then going with a TLP would be better. Even if there is interest, a TLP would not prevent a merge of the two, unless Trinidad doesn't want to or the MyFaces PMC doesn't want to. If all Tomahawk developers would like to merge with Trinidad and Trinidad wants to and the MyFaces PMC doesn't, there are other issues :) > > Right now, Tobago is in the state you described below -- You're either > using Tobago (and no other component set), or you're using Tomahawk > and other component sets. It's next to impossible to have oversight > over both projects since Tobago is mutually-exclusive of other > component sets. At one point, the Tobago people were interested in > making Tobago more compatible with Tomahawk and other component sets, > but discussion on how that would happen ever materialized beyond my > initial questions. This is something that needs to be solved at MyFaces. If you wait too long, it cannot be fixed anymore (eg no one left to care about Tobago). Mvgr, Martin
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
I'm in favor of MyFaces for Trinidad. I would like to see Trinidad as the basis for Tomahawk JSF 1.2. However, if there is no interest in merging Tomahawk and Trinidad, then going with a TLP would be better. Right now, Tobago is in the state you described below -- You're either using Tobago (and no other component set), or you're using Tomahawk and other component sets. It's next to impossible to have oversight over both projects since Tobago is mutually-exclusive of other component sets. At one point, the Tobago people were interested in making Tobago more compatible with Tomahawk and other component sets, but discussion on how that would happen ever materialized beyond my initial questions. On 4/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1.. Thing to decide now is TLP or as subproject of MyFaces. Main thing is focus to decide on what to do : - People on MyFaces equally care about and work on Trinidad - People on Trinidad equally care about MyFaces MyFaces == the code base, not the TLP project. People working on Trinidad wouldn't necessarily be interested in working on the MyFaces code base. Giving oversight in an umbrella project will get harder and harder over time, which in the end does end up in a fragmented PMC. Which means that people on the PMC just have focus on eg MyFaces, tomahawk, Tobago or Trinidad. If you are a on the PMC you should care about all of these subprojects. In short : I favor TLP. Mvgr, Martin Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > on our march reports, Jukka was asking: > > > Things to do before graduation? > > > checking the checklist (briefly) it looks like we are "set" ... > > -M > > On 3/26/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hello Martin, >> > >> > your email states that this group should at least manage to get the >> > release of the plugins out. I did. Currently this group is waiting for >> > an approval to release the CORE as well. >> >> was approved and already released :-) >> >> > >> > One item, we need to check is >> > >> > "Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidlines" >> > >> > I will look at MyFaces, how we do it there, shouldn't be that big deal. >> >> posted to /www/people.apache.org/dis/incubator, as suggested here >> >> > @GUMP: we use(d) continuum (was reseted currently) >> > that should be ok?! >> > >> > >> > What is your current thinking about this group? >> > Start a vote? Fix the missing items? Wait for approval for CORE ? >> >> So, what is the next step ? >> A vote here on this list ? >> >> I think, we also need to run a vote on the MyFaces PMC, to accept >> Trinidad as one of their subprojects. I'll do that vote as well, when >> time comes ;-) >> >> -Matthias >> >> >> > Thanks! >> > Matthias >> > >> > >> > On 2/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > In short : according to me they are.. Any feedback and additions >> appreciated.. On note : I like to >> > > see that at least the plugins get a release before we start a vote >> on dev (and I expressed below >> > > that you are targetting to have a release of core before leaving >> the incubator, although that could >> > > be a misunderstanding) >> > > >> > > If everyone agrees on dev, we start a vote on the incubator >> general list and after that on the >> > > MyFaces private list. Exit strategy probably needs to be discussed >> with the MyFaces crowd (like >> > > mailinglists) and they probably need to have votes on people on >> the trinidad ppmc list that are not >> > > yet on the MyFaces PMC (but that's up to the MyFaces PMC). I'll >> subscribe to the private myfaces >> > > list (in case you didn't know : I can as a member, which doesn't >> actually mean that I am on that PMC >> > > or have a binding vote there). >> > > >> > > >> > > The very long version : >> > > >> > > To determine if Trinidad is ready to leave the incubator I took >> > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Exiting+the+Incubator >> and tried to >> > > answer all the questions. The first 3 on that page are actually >> the last ones, since I am treating >> > > them more as general conclusions. >> > > >> > > >> > > Legal >> > > >> > > * All code ASL'ed >> > > Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-355 it >> is solved. Most important is that >> > > before the release everything is ok, so that check needs to be >> done before a release (eg by using >> > > RAT, mojo.codehaus.org is working on a maven2 plugin atm). >> > > >> > > * No non ASL or ASL compatbile dependencies in the code base >> > > Don't see any problems here (just checked the deps in the poms). >> > > >> > > * License grant complete >> > > Yep >> > > >> > > * CLAs on file. >> > > Yep. Even people who submitted patches were asked to file a CLA. >> > > >> > > * Check of project name for trademark issues >> > > Was tried, but since no one as access to the trademark database, >> it has hard to de
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
+1.. Thing to decide now is TLP or as subproject of MyFaces. Main thing is focus to decide on what to do : - People on MyFaces equally care about and work on Trinidad - People on Trinidad equally care about MyFaces MyFaces == the code base, not the TLP project. People working on Trinidad wouldn't necessarily be interested in working on the MyFaces code base. Giving oversight in an umbrella project will get harder and harder over time, which in the end does end up in a fragmented PMC. Which means that people on the PMC just have focus on eg MyFaces, tomahawk, Tobago or Trinidad. If you are a on the PMC you should care about all of these subprojects. In short : I favor TLP. Mvgr, Martin Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > on our march reports, Jukka was asking: > > > Things to do before graduation? > > > checking the checklist (briefly) it looks like we are "set" ... > > -M > > On 3/26/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hello Martin, >> > >> > your email states that this group should at least manage to get the >> > release of the plugins out. I did. Currently this group is waiting for >> > an approval to release the CORE as well. >> >> was approved and already released :-) >> >> > >> > One item, we need to check is >> > >> > "Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidlines" >> > >> > I will look at MyFaces, how we do it there, shouldn't be that big deal. >> >> posted to /www/people.apache.org/dis/incubator, as suggested here >> >> > @GUMP: we use(d) continuum (was reseted currently) >> > that should be ok?! >> > >> > >> > What is your current thinking about this group? >> > Start a vote? Fix the missing items? Wait for approval for CORE ? >> >> So, what is the next step ? >> A vote here on this list ? >> >> I think, we also need to run a vote on the MyFaces PMC, to accept >> Trinidad as one of their subprojects. I'll do that vote as well, when >> time comes ;-) >> >> -Matthias >> >> >> > Thanks! >> > Matthias >> > >> > >> > On 2/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > In short : according to me they are.. Any feedback and additions >> appreciated.. On note : I like to >> > > see that at least the plugins get a release before we start a vote >> on dev (and I expressed below >> > > that you are targetting to have a release of core before leaving >> the incubator, although that could >> > > be a misunderstanding) >> > > >> > > If everyone agrees on dev, we start a vote on the incubator >> general list and after that on the >> > > MyFaces private list. Exit strategy probably needs to be discussed >> with the MyFaces crowd (like >> > > mailinglists) and they probably need to have votes on people on >> the trinidad ppmc list that are not >> > > yet on the MyFaces PMC (but that's up to the MyFaces PMC). I'll >> subscribe to the private myfaces >> > > list (in case you didn't know : I can as a member, which doesn't >> actually mean that I am on that PMC >> > > or have a binding vote there). >> > > >> > > >> > > The very long version : >> > > >> > > To determine if Trinidad is ready to leave the incubator I took >> > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Exiting+the+Incubator >> and tried to >> > > answer all the questions. The first 3 on that page are actually >> the last ones, since I am treating >> > > them more as general conclusions. >> > > >> > > >> > > Legal >> > > >> > > * All code ASL'ed >> > > Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-355 it >> is solved. Most important is that >> > > before the release everything is ok, so that check needs to be >> done before a release (eg by using >> > > RAT, mojo.codehaus.org is working on a maven2 plugin atm). >> > > >> > > * No non ASL or ASL compatbile dependencies in the code base >> > > Don't see any problems here (just checked the deps in the poms). >> > > >> > > * License grant complete >> > > Yep >> > > >> > > * CLAs on file. >> > > Yep. Even people who submitted patches were asked to file a CLA. >> > > >> > > * Check of project name for trademark issues >> > > Was tried, but since no one as access to the trademark database, >> it has hard to determine. >> > > >> > > >> > > Meritocracy / Community >> > > >> > > * Demonstrate an active and diverse development community >> > > The community is very active, people send in patches that get >> applied, user community is a bit >> > > behind, but that should grow ones Trinidad is released. >> > > >> > > * The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor >> (there's at least 3 legally >> > > independent committers and there is no single company or entity >> that is vital to the success of the >> > > project) >> > > >> > > The main contributors are all employed by Oracle (based on the >> *commits* since end of December). >> > > These are matzew, jwaldman and awiner. >> > > gcrawford - Oracle >> > > jfallows- Not oracle anymore >> > > mmari
Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
on our march reports, Jukka was asking: Things to do before graduation? checking the checklist (briefly) it looks like we are "set" ... -M On 3/26/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Martin, > > your email states that this group should at least manage to get the > release of the plugins out. I did. Currently this group is waiting for > an approval to release the CORE as well. was approved and already released :-) > > One item, we need to check is > > "Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidlines" > > I will look at MyFaces, how we do it there, shouldn't be that big deal. posted to /www/people.apache.org/dis/incubator, as suggested here > @GUMP: we use(d) continuum (was reseted currently) > that should be ok?! > > > What is your current thinking about this group? > Start a vote? Fix the missing items? Wait for approval for CORE ? So, what is the next step ? A vote here on this list ? I think, we also need to run a vote on the MyFaces PMC, to accept Trinidad as one of their subprojects. I'll do that vote as well, when time comes ;-) -Matthias > Thanks! > Matthias > > > On 2/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In short : according to me they are.. Any feedback and additions appreciated.. On note : I like to > > see that at least the plugins get a release before we start a vote on dev (and I expressed below > > that you are targetting to have a release of core before leaving the incubator, although that could > > be a misunderstanding) > > > > If everyone agrees on dev, we start a vote on the incubator general list and after that on the > > MyFaces private list. Exit strategy probably needs to be discussed with the MyFaces crowd (like > > mailinglists) and they probably need to have votes on people on the trinidad ppmc list that are not > > yet on the MyFaces PMC (but that's up to the MyFaces PMC). I'll subscribe to the private myfaces > > list (in case you didn't know : I can as a member, which doesn't actually mean that I am on that PMC > > or have a binding vote there). > > > > > > The very long version : > > > > To determine if Trinidad is ready to leave the incubator I took > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Exiting+the+Incubator and tried to > > answer all the questions. The first 3 on that page are actually the last ones, since I am treating > > them more as general conclusions. > > > > > > Legal > > > > * All code ASL'ed > > Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-355 it is solved. Most important is that > > before the release everything is ok, so that check needs to be done before a release (eg by using > > RAT, mojo.codehaus.org is working on a maven2 plugin atm). > > > > * No non ASL or ASL compatbile dependencies in the code base > > Don't see any problems here (just checked the deps in the poms). > > > > * License grant complete > > Yep > > > > * CLAs on file. > > Yep. Even people who submitted patches were asked to file a CLA. > > > > * Check of project name for trademark issues > > Was tried, but since no one as access to the trademark database, it has hard to determine. > > > > > > Meritocracy / Community > > > > * Demonstrate an active and diverse development community > > The community is very active, people send in patches that get applied, user community is a bit > > behind, but that should grow ones Trinidad is released. > > > > * The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there's at least 3 legally > > independent committers and there is no single company or entity that is vital to the success of the > > project) > > > > The main contributors are all employed by Oracle (based on the *commits* since end of December). > > These are matzew, jwaldman and awiner. > > gcrawford - Oracle > > jfallows- Not oracle anymore > > mmarinschek - Irian (?) > > slessard- DMR Consulting Inc (?) > > baranda - ? > > Mentors / champions > > craigmcc- Sun > > mvdb- Ordina (I don't count myself as a committer though) > > mgeiler - ? (not oracle afaik) > > > > Looking at the above list, it could mean a worry, which will be a lot less worry looking at the rest > > of the exit list. > > > > * The above implies that new committers are admitted according to ASF practices > > > > Absolutely. There were 3 committers added during incubation, one not Oracle and 2 Oracle people. > > From my perspective all 3 deserved to be committer (with that amount of activity, people should be > > voted in as a committer to be honest), so no favours were made just because someone is from Oracle. > > Currently some other people are on the radar to become committer (non Oracle). > > > > * ASF style voting has been adopted and is standard practice > > > > In every way. > > > > * Demonstrate ability to tolerate and resolve conflict within the community. > > > > Haven't noted much conflicts
