Re: FreeMarker has graduated to TLP!

[Ralph Goers]

Congrats!

Ralph

> On Mar 23, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Lalish-Menagh, Trevor  
> wrote:
> 
> How exciting! Congrats to all the dedicated volunteers that made this a 
> reality!
> 
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Jacques Le Roux
>  wrote:
>> Congratulations Daniel and to all the persons who participated to this
>> endeavour. A new one begins :)
>> 
>> Jacques
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 23/03/2018 à 20:59, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
>>> 
>>> To quote the relevant part from the ASF Board Meeting Summary of March
>>> 21, 2018:
>>> 
>>>   The following resolutions were passed unanimously:
>>> 
>>> A. Establish the Apache FreeMarker Project (Dániel Dékány VP)
>>> 
>>> So now that this uncertainty was eliminated, we can feel much more
>>> motivated to push FM ahead. We were awarded with the additional trust
>>> associated to the "Apache" brand, so let's put code behind it that
>>> fits the modern standards, by which I mean FM3. Of course, FM2 also
>>> needs to be maintained, even receive new features. But I believe FM3
>>> is absolutely necessary for growth, adoption in new projects.
>>> 
>>> It will take a while until all the "paper work" and infrastructural
>>> changes are done
>>> (https://incubator.apache.org/guides/transferring.html). But we don't
>>> have to wait for all of that to release 2.3.28 as non-incubating, so I
>>> hope that will be done sometimes next week.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Trevor Lalish-Menagh
> about.me/trevmex
> 

Re: Moving JBoss FreeMarker IDE (Eclipse plugin) to the ASF?

[Ralph Goers]

If RedHat took ownership of the tool then they should be able to take care of 
changing the license and sending an SGA to the ASF. However, nothing in your 
email indicates that RedHat has any interest in donating the tool to the ASF. 
Short of that your only real option is to fork it to GitHub. You would have to 
leave the existing code as LGPL but anything new you add could use any license 
you want.

Another option would be to look at the functionality of the tool and create 
something similar without using any of the code. Of course, that is a lot more 
work.

Ralph

> On Mar 9, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Jacques Le Roux  
> wrote:
> 
> Le 09/03/2018 à 16:59, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
>> I was hasty here... as some people use multiple e-mail addresses, it's
>> actually "only" 19 contributors, out of which 11 is/was at RedHat.
> So it's only 8 persons to reach since RedHat seems OK. That sounds doable :)
> 
> Jacques
> 
> 

Re: Started graduation resolution DISCUSS on general@incubator.a.o

[Ralph Goers]

You can prepare the release in advance if you want. You just cannot make it 
public until after the board gives approval.

Ralph

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 2:09 AM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Jacopo!
> 
> If the board will accept the resolution on 21st of March, we can at
> last get rid of that discouraging "-incubating" from the Maven
> artifact version, so we should release 2.3.28 quickly. So if anyone
> wants certain featuers/fixes to be in, time to bring it up. (I will
> very certainly add at least .get_optional_template by then, and
> [=exp].)
> 
> Though it's not clear from
> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#graduating_to_a_top_level_project
> if after the board decision when can we actually do a non-incubating
> release. Pretty much immediately?
> 
> 
> Thursday, February 22, 2018, 2:10:51 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> 
>> The vote is now closed and it was successful!
>> While this is not the final step in the graduation process, and we will
>> have to wait until the 21st of March for the ASF Board to ratify the
>> resolution to establish the project, it is indeed an important step and
>> achievement: we got 12 positive binding votes from Incubator PMC members
>> and no negative votes. Congratulations to the community!
>> 
>> I am going to wait for a few days before submitting the resolution to the
>> next Board meeting agenda.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Jacopo
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
>> 
>>> I have started the resolution DISCUSS thread on the
>>> general@incubator.a.o. PPMC members please follow the discussion, and
>>> chime in if necessary!
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> 

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Graduate Apache FreeMarker Project from Incubator to TLP

[Ralph Goers]

I am confused. Who are we waiting for to do what?

Ralph

> On Feb 3, 2018, at 4:39 AM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
> Good! (And sounds like communication is lacking on the other side...)
> Now you aren't red on
> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/freemarker#reporting.
> 
> There are two other red items though, and I have to admit that I don't
> know where does it get that false information from:
> 
> * No Release Yet/Missing ASF Copyright Headers on Source Code
> * No Release Yet/Binary has licensing issues
> 
> Do we still miss some project meta info file somewhere? Where are
> these Whimsy-related things documented? Are we supposed to care at
> all?
> 
> I have just checked https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/ofbiz...
> well guys, you don't even have Software Grant and IP Clearance. So I
> guess this Whimsy thing is still in early stage... or OFBiz needs a
> good lawyer. (-;
> 
> 
> Friday, February 2, 2018, 11:02:38 PM, David E Jones wrote:
> 
>> It looks like this is now taken care of (user jonesde now on the IPMC list):
>> 
>> http://home.apache.org/phonebook.html?ctte=incubator
>> 
>> -David
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Sergio Fernández  wrote:
>> 
>>> Please David, engage again with private@incubator.a.o to see what's going
>>> on. I don't recall your issue been discussed, but I may missed it.
>>> 
>>> On Jan 30, 2018 06:39, "Daniel Dekany"  wrote:
>>> 
 Monday, January 29, 2018, 7:16:21 PM, David E Jones wrote:
 
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Daniel Dekany 
 wrote:
> 
>> Monday, January 29, 2018, 4:35:38 PM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> 
>>> Great, Daniel!
>>> 
>>> Let's move to the next step and open the vote at
>>> general@incubator.a.o
>> ;-)
>> 
>> David has started discussing the issue with his Mentor status on Jan
>> 24. I'm waiting for that to be resolved. Not sure if there's any
>> progress. David, did they answer? Because then that wasn't CC-ed to
>> the private list.
> 
> 
> I got a reply from John D. Ament on Jan 24th saying he was sending
 notice,
> but I haven't seen anything since and not sure if I should even expect
 any
> sort of email notification or if it's something I'd have to hunt around
 for
> or follow up on.
> 
> FWIW I'm not on the Incubator PMC list yet (my ASF username is
 'jonesde'):
> 
> http://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?pmc=incubator
> 
> I also don't know if my failure to respond to John's email in June will
> cause any issues, or in general what to expect with all this so I
>>> really
> can't say much.
 
 If the process is like here, they have vote (at least 3 days), then
 wait for 3 days so the board can veto the decision, and only then mail
 you... I hope they have started the process. If they won't report back
 in a few days, it would be good if you ask them.
 
> -David
 
 --
 Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany
 
 
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache FreeMarker Project from Incubator to TLP

[Ralph Goers]

+1 binding

Ralph

> On Jan 13, 2018, at 2:31 AM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
> Dear FreeMarker Community Members,
> 
> Following the discussion on this list
> (dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org) on graduating the Apache
> FreeMarker Project from Incubation to a Top Level Project, I start
> this voting thread.
> 
> Project status information:
> - Status page: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/freemarker.html
> - Project Maturity Model:
>  
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FREEMARKER/Apache+FreeMarker+Project+Maturity+Model
> 
> Please vote on the Apache FreeMarker Project resolution that is found
> at the bottom of this mail.
> 
> [ ] +1 Graduate Apache FreeMarker from the Incubator.
> [ ] +0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Don't graduate Apache FreeMarker from the Incubator (please
>   provide the reason)
> 
> The vote is open for a minimum of 72 hours. Please don't hesitate to
> indicate if you need more time to check graduation requirements. In
> order to succeed, 3 positive votes from PPMC members, and no vetoes
> from PPMC member are required.
> 
> If this VOTE succeeds, a similar VOTE will be started on the
> gene...@incubator.apache.org mailing list. If that succeeds, a
> resolution will be included in the next Apache Board Meeting.
> 
> Thanks all for your participation
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> ---
> 
> Establish the Apache FreeMarker Project
> 
> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
> open-source software, for distribution at no charge to 
> the public, related to a template engine.
> 
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
> Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Apache FreeMarker Project",
> be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the
> Foundation; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that the Apache FreeMarker Project be and hereby is
> responsible for the creation and maintenance of software
> related to a template engine, and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache FreeMarker" be
> and hereby is created, the person holding such office to
> serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair
> of the Apache FreeMarker Project, and to have primary responsibility
> for management of the projects within the scope of
> responsibility of the Apache FreeMarker Project; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
> hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
> Apache FreeMarker Project:
> 
>  * Dániel Dékány   
>  * David E. Jones  
>  * Jacopo Cappellato   
>  * Jacques Le Roux 
>  * Nan Lei 
>  * Sergio Fernández
>  * Woonsan Ko  
> 
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Dániel Dékány
> be appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache FreeMarker,
> to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
> Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until
> death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification,
> or until a successor is appointed; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that the Apache FreeMarker Project be and hereby
> is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache
> Incubator FreeMarker podling; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache
> Incubator FreeMarker podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator
> Project are hereafter discharged.
> 
> 

Re: Resolution draft for graduation, members

[Ralph Goers]

Please remember that the role of PMC chair doesn’t have much to do with how 
much you commit or perform other project tasks. As you will see at 
https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair 
<https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair> the role is more secretarial than 
anything else. There should be no expectation that the PMC chair is the 
“leader” of the project although they do have responsibilities that other PMC 
members do not. That said, if a PMC chair is indisposed another PMC member 
should be ready to submit the board report in their absence. 

You should not be thinking of the PMC chair as being the person who most 
“deserves” it, but the person who has the time to participate in the other 
mailing lists and perform the tasks of the job.

Ralph

> On Jan 8, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> I'm not highly involved in this project but I thought I'd make a comment
> from my brief experience. Daniel to me seems to be a heavy duty lifter. I
> was surprised at how fast he got features and code committed. In addition I
> think he has a clear vision for the project and its roadmap. He is open to
> ideas and cares about the project and wants to build a community. To me
> this makes him a good candidate.
> 
> I am not the most active here so I apologize if my comments are out of
> place. Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Taher Alkhateeb
> 
> On Jan 8, 2018 12:06 PM, "Daniel Dekany" <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Monday, January 8, 2018, 6:30:33 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
>> You would probably be better served by having someone else
>> volunteer to be PMC chair. My reasoning for that is exactly for the
>> same reason you put yourself there. You are the most active
>> committer and obviously aren’t going anywhere. Having someone else
>> be chair insures that someone else is staying fairly involved in the
>> activities of the project, even if they aren’t the most active
>> committer. You need at least 3 active PMC members so use any
>> opportunity you can to make sure you stay above that mark.
> 
> Since it's a voluntarily position, let's see who wants that
> responsibility. Guys, anyone wants to be a PMC chair if the project
> graduates?
> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Jan 7, 2018, at 1:08 PM, David E Jones <d...@dejc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Looks good Daniel, may it be resolved!
>>> 
>>> -David
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Here's the Resolution you will vote on (at least that's my plan) in
>>>> the graduation VOTE here on the poddling list. Anyone sees any
>>>> oversight in it?
>>>> 
>>>> As of the list of project members, I have listed everyone who said
>>>> that he/she intends to stay so far. Anyone else? In the current list,
>>>> everyone intends to be in the PMC as well.
>>>> 
>>>> About the "be appointed to the office of Vice President" thing. Who
>>>> should be it? I have written there myself for now, as I'm by far the
>>>> most involved with the project. But maybe someone else fits that role
>>>> better. I don't fancy titles, no offense taken in that case.
>>>> 
>>>> And, as always... if you can, please check if we miss any formal
>>>> requirements for graduation!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Establish the Apache FreeMarker Project
>>>> 
>>>> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
>>>> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
>>>> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
>>>> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
>>>> open-source software, for distribution at no charge to
>>>> the public, related to a template engine.
>>>> 
>>>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
>>>> Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Apache FreeMarker Project",
>>>> be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the
>>>> Foundation; and be it further
>>>> 
>>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache FreeMarker Project be and hereby is
>>>> responsible for the creation and maintenance of software
>>>> related to a template engine, and be it further
>>>> 
>>>> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache FreeMarker" be
>>>> and hereby is created, the person holding such office to
>>>> serve

Re: Resolution draft for graduation, members

[Ralph Goers]

You would probably be better served by having someone else volunteer to be PMC 
chair. My reasoning for that is exactly for the same reason you put yourself 
there. You are the most active committer and obviously aren’t going anywhere. 
Having someone else be chair insures that someone else is staying fairly 
involved in the activities of the project, even if they aren’t the most active 
committer. You need at least 3 active PMC members so use any opportunity you 
can to make sure you stay above that mark.

Ralph

> On Jan 7, 2018, at 1:08 PM, David E Jones  wrote:
> 
> Looks good Daniel, may it be resolved!
> 
> -David
> 
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
>> Here's the Resolution you will vote on (at least that's my plan) in
>> the graduation VOTE here on the poddling list. Anyone sees any
>> oversight in it?
>> 
>> As of the list of project members, I have listed everyone who said
>> that he/she intends to stay so far. Anyone else? In the current list,
>> everyone intends to be in the PMC as well.
>> 
>> About the "be appointed to the office of Vice President" thing. Who
>> should be it? I have written there myself for now, as I'm by far the
>> most involved with the project. But maybe someone else fits that role
>> better. I don't fancy titles, no offense taken in that case.
>> 
>> And, as always... if you can, please check if we miss any formal
>> requirements for graduation!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Establish the Apache FreeMarker Project
>> 
>> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
>> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
>> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
>> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
>> open-source software, for distribution at no charge to
>> the public, related to a template engine.
>> 
>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
>> Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Apache FreeMarker Project",
>> be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the
>> Foundation; and be it further
>> 
>> RESOLVED, that the Apache FreeMarker Project be and hereby is
>> responsible for the creation and maintenance of software
>> related to a template engine, and be it further
>> 
>> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache FreeMarker" be
>> and hereby is created, the person holding such office to
>> serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair
>> of the Apache FreeMarker Project, and to have primary responsibility
>> for management of the projects within the scope of
>> responsibility of the Apache FreeMarker Project; and be it further
>> 
>> RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
>> hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
>> Apache FreeMarker Project:
>> 
>>  * Dániel Dékány   
>>  * David E. Jones  
>>  * Jacopo Cappellato   
>>  * Jacques Le Roux 
>>  * Sergio Fernández
>>  * Woonsan Ko  
>> 
>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Dániel Dékány
>> be appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache FreeMarker,
>> to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
>> Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until
>> death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification,
>> or until a successor is appointed; and be it further
>> 
>> RESOLVED, that the Apache FreeMarker Project be and hereby
>> is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache
>> Incubator FreeMarker podling; and be it further
>> 
>> RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache
>> Incubator FreeMarker podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator
>> Project are hereafter discharged.
>> 
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>> 
>> 

Re: try.freemarker.apache.org instead of try.freemarker.org?

[Ralph Goers]

The difference is that try.freemarker.org <http://try.freemarker.org/> is a 
companion site. So long as the main site is freemarker.apache.org I don’t think 
anyone will complain about a companion site.

Ralph

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ralph,
> 
> IIRW openoffice.org is an exception. There are others, when the domain was 
> well established before entering the incubator, subversion.org comes to mind.
> 
> IMO freemarker.org was well established before entering the incubator but not 
> try.freemarker.apache.org which is quite recent. Hence maybe some caution 
> needed...
> 
> My 2 cts
> 
> Jacques
> 
> 
> Le 29/11/2017 à 14:55, Ralph Goers a écrit :
>> Personally, I don’t see why there should be a problem as long as 
>> try.freemarker.org <http://try.freemarker.org/> is an Apache controlled 
>> domain. You aren’t the only project that has a vanity domain. See 
>> www.openoffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org/> as an example.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 1:51 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just as a reminder, I'm planning to request try.freemarker.apache.org,
>>> from Infra and then redirect try.freemarker.org to it, because I'm
>>> worried that the IPMC will dislike that we use try.freemarker.org as
>>> the canonical address of the online template tester. It will also use
>>> https and a LetsEncrypt certificate (we can't use the *.apache.org
>>> cert on a VM).
>>> 
>>> BTW, using a sub-sub domains is a bit extreme. I'm not aware of any
>>> gotchas in out case, but if anyone is aware some, like LetsEncrypt
>>> doesn't support them or something, please stop me! (Also, as this way
>>> we will receive the cookies of freemarker.apache.org, but certainly we
>>> will able to cope with that, if it ever causes a problem.)
>>> 
>>> Any comments? And do you (especially PPMC members) agree?
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: Home page content changes - please review

[Ralph Goers]

It looks like you only fixed one of them.

Ralph

> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, fixed.
> 
> 
> Monday, November 13, 2017, 5:13:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
>> Aggreement s/b Agreement.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:55 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have added a such statement to the README.md now:
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-freemarker/
>>> 
>>> Regarding pull request on Github
>>> 
>>> By sending a pull request you grant the Apache Software Foundation
>>> sufficient rights to use and release the submitted work under the
>>> Apache license. You grant the same rights (copyright license, patent
>>> license, etc.) to the Apache Software Foundation as if you have
>>> signed a Contributor License Aggreement. For contributions that are
>>> judged to be non-trivial, you will be asked to actually signing a
>>> Contributor License Aggreement.
>>> 
>>> Though it's not shown in a popup with a checkbox before someone makes
>>> a pull request, so anybody can say that they haven't seen it... it's
>>> certainly better than nothing.
>>> 
>>> Monday, November 13, 2017, 12:36:24 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> 
>>>> An ICLA is always encouraged but is not required if the committer
>>>> knows for certain the contributor intends for their contribution to
>>>> be Apache licensed. Simply having a statement in the main README at
>>>> GitHub with a statement to the effect that all contributions
>>>> submitted as pull requests are under the Apache license would be enough.
>>>> 
>>>> Ralph 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 11, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Months ago we had discussion here about when an ICLA or CCLA is needed for
>>>>> merging Girhub PR. To reflect that, I have updated this part:
>>>>> https://freemarker.apache.org/committer-howto.html#merging-pull-request
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you agree? Especially if you are PPMC, it would be good if you
>>>>> answer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, the left side menu has changed (like here:
>>>>> https://freemarker.apache.org/ ), as I have removed the
>>>>> "Miscellaneous" category, and added the "Foundation" category. The
>>>>> last is to make certain ASF related matters more accessible. The items
>>>>> that were under "Miscellaneous":
>>>>> - sf.net project link was removed (nobody should use that anymore)
>>>>> - "Source code" was moved to Community (doesn't fit elsewhere...)
>>>>> - "Project history" was moved under "Foundation"
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> 

Re: Home page content changes - please review

[Ralph Goers]

Aggreement s/b Agreement.

Ralph


> On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:55 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> I have added a such statement to the README.md now:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-freemarker/
> 
>  Regarding pull request on Github
> 
>  By sending a pull request you grant the Apache Software Foundation
>  sufficient rights to use and release the submitted work under the
>  Apache license. You grant the same rights (copyright license, patent
>  license, etc.) to the Apache Software Foundation as if you have
>  signed a Contributor License Aggreement. For contributions that are
>  judged to be non-trivial, you will be asked to actually signing a
>  Contributor License Aggreement.
> 
> Though it's not shown in a popup with a checkbox before someone makes
> a pull request, so anybody can say that they haven't seen it... it's
> certainly better than nothing.
> 
> Monday, November 13, 2017, 12:36:24 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
>> An ICLA is always encouraged but is not required if the committer
>> knows for certain the contributor intends for their contribution to
>> be Apache licensed. Simply having a statement in the main README at
>> GitHub with a statement to the effect that all contributions
>> submitted as pull requests are under the Apache license would be enough.
>> 
>> Ralph 
>> 
>>> On Nov 11, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Months ago we had discussion here about when an ICLA or CCLA is needed for
>>> merging Girhub PR. To reflect that, I have updated this part:
>>> https://freemarker.apache.org/committer-howto.html#merging-pull-request
>>> 
>>> Do you agree? Especially if you are PPMC, it would be good if you
>>> answer.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Also, the left side menu has changed (like here:
>>> https://freemarker.apache.org/ ), as I have removed the
>>> "Miscellaneous" category, and added the "Foundation" category. The
>>> last is to make certain ASF related matters more accessible. The items
>>> that were under "Miscellaneous":
>>> - sf.net project link was removed (nobody should use that anymore)
>>> - "Source code" was moved to Community (doesn't fit elsewhere...)
>>> - "Project history" was moved under "Foundation"
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> 

Re: Changing official domain to freemarker.apache.org now? Was: Migrating [try.]freemarker.org to HTTPS, anyone?

[Ralph Goers]

There is no requirement that you ever get rid of the freemarker.org domain. 
This is not the first project to have its own domain.

Ralph

> On Oct 23, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Monday, October 23, 2017, 4:10:27 PM, Christoph Rüger wrote:
> 
>> +1 for the change.
>> 
>> Please keep the structure of the urls the same as before as we have linked
>> to the Freemarker docs from various of our pages. This would make migration
>> of deeplinks easier.
>> http://freemarker.org/docs/ref_builtins_string.html 
>> <http://freemarker.org/docs/ref_builtins_string.html>
>> should then be
>> http://freemarker.apache.org/docs/ref_builtins_string.html 
>> <http://freemarker.apache.org/docs/ref_builtins_string.html>
> 
> Sure, it will be HTTP 301 redirection where only the domain is
> replaced.
> 
>> Also it would be helpful to keep freemarker.org <http://freemarker.org/> 
>> around for a while with a
>> redirect.
> 
> Hopefully the ASF will keep it for a good while.
> 
>> We need some time to migrate all the links.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org>:
>> 
>>> As this issue that we aren't using an apache.org domain comes up again
>>> and again, I propose that we switch to freemarker.apache.org now. Also
>>> to try.freemarker.apache.org. Anybody for or against it?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Friday, October 20, 2017, 10:18:01 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 20, 2017, at 5:59 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Friday, October 20, 2017, 12:24:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Le 01/10/2017 à 23:27, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
>>>>>>> Sunday, October 1, 2017, 8:26:53 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le 23/09/2017 à 08:44, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Friday, September 22, 2017, 11:17:59 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Le 22/09/2017 à 22:22, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> Google doesn't like plain HTTP sites as we know (SEO), also I hear
>>>>>>>>>>> that starting from October they want to show warning in Chrome if
>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> have forms on your page. We do have forms... On all page under
>>>>>>>>>>> http://freemarker.org/docs/ there's a search field, and
>>>>>>>>>>> http://try.freemarker.org/ is nothing but a form.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone want to tackle this? Or part of this?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I did that for OFBiz. I can have a look before October.
>>>>>>>>> That would be great, thanks!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sorry, OFBiz still being my priority, I was not able to do it yet.
>>>>>>>> But I should be able to start this week, most likely Monday...
>>>>>>> No problem, and thanks for keep us informed!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>> Sorry again, my current contract has changed and I'll not be available
>>> before November
>>>>>> I'm though trying the new release in OFBiz right now, so far all seems
>>> OK :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The latest Chrome doesn't (yet?) show any warnings on our site, so no
>>>>> problem. (Maybe they only do it if there's a password filed, for now.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the checking the release!
>>>> 
>>>> I should also point out that in the last board report the issue of
>>>> freemarker not yet having an apache.org <http://apache.org/> web
>>>> site came up. I would suggest that the project make that transition
>>>> sooner than later if graduation is desired.
>>>> 
>>>> Ralph
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Christoph Rüger, Geschäftsführer
>> Synesty <https://synesty.com/> - Anbinden und Automatisieren ohne
>> Programmieren - Automatisierung, Schnittstellen, Datenfeeds
>> 
>> Xing: https://www.xing.com/profile/Christoph_Rueger2
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/christoph-rueger/a/685/198
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany

Re: Migrating [try.]freemarker.org to HTTPS, anyone?

[Ralph Goers]

> On Oct 20, 2017, at 5:59 AM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
> Friday, October 20, 2017, 12:24:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> 
>> Le 01/10/2017 à 23:27, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
>>> Sunday, October 1, 2017, 8:26:53 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> 
 Le 23/09/2017 à 08:44, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
> Friday, September 22, 2017, 11:17:59 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> 
>> Le 22/09/2017 à 22:22, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
>>> Google doesn't like plain HTTP sites as we know (SEO), also I hear
>>> that starting from October they want to show warning in Chrome if you
>>> have forms on your page. We do have forms... On all page under
>>> http://freemarker.org/docs/ there's a search field, and
>>> http://try.freemarker.org/ is nothing but a form.
>>> 
>>> Anyone want to tackle this? Or part of this?
>>> 
>> I did that for OFBiz. I can have a look before October.
> That would be great, thanks!
> 
>> Jacques
>> 
>> 
 Sorry, OFBiz still being my priority, I was not able to do it yet.
 But I should be able to start this week, most likely Monday...
>>> No problem, and thanks for keep us informed!
>>> 
 Jacques
>> Sorry again, my current contract has changed and I'll not be available 
>> before November
>> I'm though trying the new release in OFBiz right now, so far all seems OK :)
> 
> The latest Chrome doesn't (yet?) show any warnings on our site, so no
> problem. (Maybe they only do it if there's a password filed, for now.)
> 
> Thanks for the checking the release!

I should also point out that in the last board report the issue of freemarker 
not yet having an apache.org  web site came up. I would 
suggest that the project make that transition sooner than later if graduation 
is desired.

Ralph

Re: [DISCUSS] graduation

[Ralph Goers]

This project is not in any danger of being “retired”.

Ralph

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
> Tuesday, July 26, 2016, 6:43:46 PM, Pete Helgren wrote:
> 
>> I lurk as well but use Freemarker pretty much every day in a fairly 
>> narrowly defined way.  I am a little fuzzy on the whole "graduation" 
>> discussion because I don't know who, exactly, is invited to participate
>> (Mentors, IPMC, ?? ) so trying to peel out what I, as an FM user, need
>> to weigh in on has been a bit of a challenge (so I remain silent).
> 
> Basically, if the Apache officers look at the project and see that I'm
> the only one who lifts any substantial weight here, they certainly
> won't let the project graduate. If the project can't graduate for very
> long, it will be terminated (called "retirement"). Well, I guess as
> far as the project produces releases, it can hand around in the
> incubator for quite while, but not forever...
> 
>> FWIW I'll help however I can.  My needs to "grow" FM have been few. It
>> does what I want it to do and I am not strong enough in the Java skills
>> department to feel like I can actively participate in development.
> 
> Even testing new features is a big help. (In the recent few versions
> there were many substantial new features. It would have be very useful
> if more eyes look at them. Any bug or design oversight that slips in
> can become a backward compatibility constraint.)
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
>> Pete Helgren
>> www.petesworkshop.com
>> 
>> On 7/26/2016 2:34 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>>> Monday, July 25, 2016, 5:00:27 PM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>> 
 On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
 
> The project's interest is to graduate, so obviously, I would prefer it
> to graduate (and probably most mentors too). But I don't want to get
> into a graduation vote that is improbable to pass. So I would prefer
> if we first try to figure out the feelings of others.
> 
> Does any of you know a precedent of a project in similar state
> passing?
> 
 Not that I'm aware...
 
 You have to know IPMC we're normally very picky about community growth.
 Therefore, although couple of mentors we already expressed our interest to
 continue supporting the project (Jacopo and myself), there is no formal
 trace of that. So before approaching the IPMC at general@incubator I'd try
 to sort-out first the formal addition of the new PPMC members (i.e., vote).
>>> Is it supposed to be a normal "Voting in a new PPMC member" votings as
>>> described on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html (CC-ed to
>>> the IPMC and so on). I'm asking because all Mentors are already PPMC
>>> members right now, because that's the initial status of Mentors when a
>>> proddling starts. Should I add some explanation to the voting, like
>>> that we are voting about who should stay even after graduation, or is
>>> it the normal way of doing this?
>>> 
 After that I'd give it a try to the open discussion to see what's the
 general mood of the people...
 
 
 
> --
> Thanks,
>  Daniel Dekany
> 
> 
> Thursday, July 21, 2016, 12:23:47 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> 
>> Thank you Sergio.
>> 
>> I am wondering if we should first run a vote in this list to clearly
>> express the desire of this community to graduate now (or wait).
>> Then we could start the discussion in the general list.
>> This is just an idea, if we prefer to ping the general list first, then
>> great.
>> 
>> Jacopo
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Sergio Fernández 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think the graduation discussion has been spread in different threads.
> So
>>> I'd like to come back to the path.
>>> 
>>> From my point of view the project could be ready for graduation. The
> single
>>> issue that could block that is the evolution of the community. Jacopo
>>> offered to bring up this topic into general@incubator, to see what's
> the
>>> feeling from the folks not so closely related to the podling. Do we
> still
>>> want to approach it in this way?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Sergio Fernández
>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>> Redlink GmbH
>>> m: +43 6602747925
>>> e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co
>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>> 
> 
 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] graduation

[Ralph Goers]

To answer this question, FreeMarker primarily has a single developer who does 
most everything when he can. The whole point of becoming a project at Apache 
was to try to change that. 

Normally committers are only nominated and elected after they contribute for a 
while - see http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html 
.  It really doesn’t matter 
much how you contribute. In a project I used to participate in we elected 
someone who participated by organizing all of our get-togethers.  Fixing 
documentation, translating to other languages, and fixing bugs are all valued 
ways to contribute.

Ralph

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Pete Helgren  wrote:
> 
> I lurk as well but use Freemarker pretty much every day in a fairly narrowly 
> defined way.  I am a little fuzzy on the whole "graduation" discussion 
> because I don't know who, exactly, is invited to participate (Mentors, IPMC, 
> ?? ) so trying to peel out what I, as an FM user, need to weigh in on has 
> been a bit of a challenge (so I remain silent).
> 
> FWIW I'll help however I can.  My needs to "grow" FM have been few.  It does 
> what I want it to do and I am not strong enough in the Java skills department 
> to feel like I can actively participate in development.
> 
> Pete Helgren
> www.petesworkshop.com
> 
> On 7/26/2016 2:34 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>> Monday, July 25, 2016, 5:00:27 PM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
>>> 
 The project's interest is to graduate, so obviously, I would prefer it
 to graduate (and probably most mentors too). But I don't want to get
 into a graduation vote that is improbable to pass. So I would prefer
 if we first try to figure out the feelings of others.
 
 Does any of you know a precedent of a project in similar state
 passing?
 
>>> Not that I'm aware...
>>> 
>>> You have to know IPMC we're normally very picky about community growth.
>>> Therefore, although couple of mentors we already expressed our interest to
>>> continue supporting the project (Jacopo and myself), there is no formal
>>> trace of that. So before approaching the IPMC at general@incubator I'd try
>>> to sort-out first the formal addition of the new PPMC members (i.e., vote).
>> Is it supposed to be a normal "Voting in a new PPMC member" votings as
>> described on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html (CC-ed to
>> the IPMC and so on). I'm asking because all Mentors are already PPMC
>> members right now, because that's the initial status of Mentors when a
>> proddling starts. Should I add some explanation to the voting, like
>> that we are voting about who should stay even after graduation, or is
>> it the normal way of doing this?
>> 
>>> After that I'd give it a try to the open discussion to see what's the
>>> general mood of the people...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 --
 Thanks,
  Daniel Dekany
 
 
 Thursday, July 21, 2016, 12:23:47 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
 
> Thank you Sergio.
> 
> I am wondering if we should first run a vote in this list to clearly
> express the desire of this community to graduate now (or wait).
> Then we could start the discussion in the general list.
> This is just an idea, if we prefer to ping the general list first, then
> great.
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think the graduation discussion has been spread in different threads.
 So
>> I'd like to come back to the path.
>> 
>> From my point of view the project could be ready for graduation. The
 single
>> issue that could block that is the evolution of the community. Jacopo
>> offered to bring up this topic into general@incubator, to see what's
 the
>> feeling from the folks not so closely related to the podling. Do we
 still
>> want to approach it in this way?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> --
>> Sergio Fernández
>> Partner Technology Manager
>> Redlink GmbH
>> m: +43 6602747925
>> e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co
>> w: http://redlink.co
>> 
 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: Graduation issues

[Ralph Goers]

If the graduation vote fails the project would be told why. They would continue 
in the incubator if they choose until whatever issues there were are addressed.

PPMC members usually continue on as PMC members although mentors frequently 
don’t stay on.

Ralph

> On Jun 18, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
> Saturday, June 18, 2016, 9:41:19 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> 
>> I agree that it is the right time to discuss graduation.
>> In my opinion the incubation process for Freemarker has been successful and
>> for this reason I will vote +1 for the graduation.
>> As anticipated when we initially discussed the incubation, one critical
>> aspect of the Freemarker project was its small committer's base; under this
>> aspect the incubation process didn't do any magic and frankly speaking I
>> was not expecting it to happen.
>> However, as mentioned by Daniel and Sergio, the project is mature but there
>> are plans for the future that will keep the community busy, not just
>> maintaining the old code.
>> This community has still to find a more effective way to attract new
>> committers but this should not be a blocker to become a top level project @
>> ASF.
> 
> And for the record, I think that requires some substantial
> modernization/cleanup, which I have called FreeMarker 3 as it drops
> backward compatibility. There are many things where FreeMarker 2 can
> be evolved further without breaking backward compatibility, but making
> the project more attractive is also timely, and the resources are
> scarce, so I think we can't have both.
> 
>> It is however important to verify that we will have, even after graduation,
>> a PMC group capable of casting at least 3 positive votes on releases.
> 
> Is it customary for PPMC members of the poddling to be also in the PMC
> of the graduated project? If so, can any of you express his intent
> regarding that?
> 
> What are the risks of failing the graduation vote?
> 
> BTW, something that I can do to help it, to document some
> project-specific rules, and a step-by-step release tutorial.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> 
>> Jacopo
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Sergio Fernández  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Daniel Dekany 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 I think we can start some discussion about that even now. Or at least
 I will tell what do I think about the state of the project.
 
>>> 
>>> Great step. Thanks.
>>> 
>>> The main problem is the number of active developers, which is 1, me.
 
>>> 
>>> I'm aware...
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-freemarker/graphs/contributors?from=2015-07-01=c
>>> 
>>> 
 What if I'm hit by a truck tomorrow? We can hope that if there's a bug
 that concerns many, then someone will eventually fix it. After all the
 owner (ASF) won't be gone, the release infrastructure is there, etc.
 But as far as non-bugfix development goes, it's certain that things
 would stop. Some may say that that's OK for a project that's
 backward-compatibility-locked for 12 years now (the 2.x line is
 actually 14 years old).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Well, I'd say that's critical, but the community of a project is more than
>>> the developers who code. And the Freemarker community is much bigger than
>>> what you could think.
>>> 
>>> For instance if you consider my personal case: I volunteered for mentor
>>> because I knew the project for so long. I even code some extensions (
>>> http://marmotta.apache.org/ldpath/template.html). Definitively I used
>>> Freemarker much more in the past than currently, but Web development has
>>> changed a lot, moving more stuff to the frontend (10 years ago we didn't
>>> have AngularJS).
>>> 
>>> So I'd say there are many people like me out there, using every day
>>> solutions based on Freemarker. People who are not that close to the source
>>> base, but familiar enough to be able to jump in at any time a provide a
>>> patch.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 But of course that's just slow death if a
 project can't counter its old design problems and can't evolve to
 tackle new problems anymore. So indeed 2.x should switch to
 maintenance eventually (but ATM there are still things that can be
 done in 2.x), but only to give place for 3.x. Anyway, how to catch
 long standing developers? I don't think that 2.x have a real chance
 for that, because of all the legacy code burden piled up. (Some Apache
 projects have many paid contributors, but I think FM isn't the kind of
 project that can have that, so it's important that the developers want
 to fiddle with it for free.) So the 3.x jump will be necessary, and
 then, maybe, we can have a developer base growth (template engines
 isn't hot topic anymore, so I just mean having a few developers
 around). But 3.x is far away (if it will happen at all), and we can't
 hang around in the incubator 

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

[Ralph Goers]

I am also +1 on the release

Ralph

> On Jan 16, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
> Those also look fine to me. The artifacts has the new NOTICE files,
> and the the sha1 and md5 checksums are correct.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> 
> Saturday, January 16, 2016, 4:34:54 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> 
>> I was talking about the files here:
>> 
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/freemarker/freemarker/2.3.24-rc01-incubating/
>> 
>> Jacopo
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
>> Friday, January 15, 2016, 9:46:31 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>> 
>>> the release files and the hashes/signatures seem to be the same of the
>>> previous attempt. Maybe I am missing something but I was expecting a new
>>> version of them so that we could test the integrity of the bundles.
>> 
>> Which one? They seem to me up to date
>> (https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.24-rc01-incubating/binaries/apache-freemarker-2.3.24-rc01-incubating-bin.tar.gz.md5,
>> etc.)
>> 
>> OTOH I see something funny with the sha512 files. If I check them out
>> with SVN, they are fine. But if I download them from the web URL, they
>> come down gzip-ed... But I assume this glitch has nothing to do with
>> the release files.
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Jacopo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
>>> 
 I did an update. No functionality/stability changes, only legal ones
 and some build script change:
 
 - NOTICE file changes:
  - Added missing META-INF/NOTICE to the Maven javadoc artifact
  - More precise and readable font-related section in the binary
distribution
  - Customized META-INF/NOTICE in freemkarker.jar, to fit this
particular artifact.
 - `ant maven-dist` now selects the appropriate target Maven repo
  (snapshot VS staging) based on the version number.
 
 All the links remain as there were. Except, the Git commit hashes
 change to this:
 
 Normal version:
  "2.3" branch commit hash: b9ca91dd5c3b04121f5ddcb9f6194c1e7931ba2c
 
 https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-freemarker.git;a=commit;h=b9ca91dd5c3b04121f5ddcb9f6194c1e7931ba2c
 
 Google App Engine ("gae") compliant version:
   "2.3-gae" branch  commit hash: 0c71d8f99323577d9683d924c51d617eb0346d15
 
 https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-freemarker.git;a=commit;h=0c71d8f99323577d9683d924c51d617eb0346d15
 
 Please review and vote!
 
 --
 Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany
 
 
 Thursday, January 7, 2016, 10:29:32 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
 
> Dear Mentors, and everyone else!
> 
> Here's the 2nd attempt on 2.3.24-rc01-incubating. Nothing has changed
> that affects FreeMarker's functionality/stability. These are merely
> fixes related to licensing files and Apache packaging conventions.
> 
> As previously, if you can, please test the release with your own
> FreeMarker-dependent projects, and in general try to find rough edges,
> tell your insights. The binary with full documentation and change log:
> 
> 
> 
 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.24-rc01-incubating/binaries/apache-freemarker-2.3.24-rc01-incubating-bin.tar.gz
> 
> Git:
> 
>  Normal version:
>  "2.3" branch commit hash: ce1dc19b3ccfb734af551c2d694a3a3d1039f7fa
> 
> 
 https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-freemarker.git;a=commit;h=ce1dc19b3ccfb734af551c2d694a3a3d1039f7fa
> 
>  Googla App Engine ("gae") compliant version:
>  "2.3-gae" branch  commit hash:
> 6166efe1d02fe89a98c7d87ab26a608e2d560492
> 
> 
 https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-freemarker.git;a=commit;h=6166efe1d02fe89a98c7d87ab26a608e2d560492
> 
>  (Tagging will happen if and when it indeed becomes to a release.)
> 
> Maven (jar, javadoc and source artifacts):
> 
>  Repository:
>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/
> 
>  Browse (Mentors please check contents):
> 
> 
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/freemarker/freemarker/2.3.24-rc01-incubating/
> 
> 
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/freemarker/freemarker-gae/2.3.24-rc01-incubating/
> 
>  Maven coordiantes:
>org.freemarker
>freemarker
>2.3.24-rc01-incubating
> 
>or the same with freemarker-gae.
> 
> The staged dist directory structure:
> 
>  https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/
> 
> Notes:
> 
> - See the README for the build instructions.
> 
> - You can run `ant rat`. If you extract the two distributions (I mean
>  the 

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating

[Ralph Goers]

Actually, you can deploy SNAPSHOTs from a Jenkins job every day if you want to. 
They aren’t releases. I believe the only purpose that section serves is to let 
you verify that your settings are correct and that you have permission to 
deploy to the repository.

Note that what you are deploying to the Nexus repository is what is going to go 
to Maven Central. What goes to Maven Central should not include the zip or 
tar.gz of the binaries and source you will be distributing on dist.apache.org.  
With Log4j I end up deploying all of that to Nexus and then telling folks how 
to download it with wget. Once the vote passes I commit the distribution pieces 
into the distribution directory and delete them from Nexus before publishing 
the release in Nexus.

Ralph

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 2:37 AM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
> There were no further problems after I have realized that such
> automatic version modification must happen there.
> 
> BTW, I'm not sure why the snapshot related steps aren't marked as
> optional in the "Staging a release" guide. If someone wants to
> understand what's going on, instead of just following the prescribed
> steps, it can be confusing, especially without mentioning that the
> "-SNAPSHOT" will be removed, and so you do not stage SNAPSHOT-s.
> 
> 
> Friday, January 8, 2016, 8:42:53 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> 
>> Well, that's described by the Maven Release plugin:
>> 
>> http://maven.apache.org/maven-release/maven-release-plugin/examples/prepare-release.html
>> 
>> BTW, I always found that plugin a bit tricky, so some defaults are not the 
>> best, for instance:
>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/marmotta/blob/develop/pom.xml#L208
>> 
>> So in a past project we've put together a detailed guide that may
>> be relevant for you too:
>> https://wiki.apache.org/marmotta/ReleaseProcess
>> 
>> I really find useful, in combination of pushChanges=false, the
>> trick of using the local close as connections on release:prepare:
>> -DconnectionUrl=scm:git:file://`pwd`/.git
>> 
>> Hope that helps.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
>> Never mind, I have figured it out... "mvn release:prepare" removes the
>> "-SNAPHOST" from the version, hence the documentation at ASF doesn't
>> mention that such thing has happened after you have done the SNAPSHOT
>> deployment. (A bit confusing IMO.)
>> 
>> 
>> Thursday, January 7, 2016, 6:03:02 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>> 
>>> I have fixed the noticed legal and packaging things (no actual change
>>> in FreeMarker itself since the last vote), and almost called a new
>>> voting, but I have some Maven doubts. I can deploy into the staging
>>> repo, but I didn't dare to Close the staging repo because this I don't
>>> understand in
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#stage-release-vote:
>>> "the project you want to stage must be a SNAPSHOT version". But if
>>> it's 2.3.24-rc01-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as opposed to just
>>> 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, which it is now), and the vote passes, then I
>>> had to build and Maven-deploy a different artifact that's not a
>>> SNAPSHOT and wasn't voted on. I don't think that's the intent. So, if
>>> I just Close the staging repo, I would think that it doesn't go
>>> anywhere "too public", not even if it's non-SNAPSHOT, only if I also
>>> "Promote" it. But I don't know. So what artifact version should I use?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Otherwise, here's the new version - anybody spots something wrong with
>>> it before the next voting?
>>> 
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.24-rc01-incubating/
>>> 
>>> 2.3-gae commit hash: b968ffaf2b52225e57ec196aaa3ee7345fa0024d
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-freemarker.git;a=commit;h=b968ffaf2b52225e57ec196aaa3ee7345fa0024d
>>> 
>>> 2.3 commit hash: 9a4f59c1eec85a0d7b9afb400626ec49f46e
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-freemarker.git;a=commit;h=9a4f59c1eec85a0d7b9afb400626ec49f46e
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thursday, January 7, 2016, 5:18:20 PM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>> 
 On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
>> You'll need to to push the release to Maven central, so it's better to
> have
>> it as soon as possible. I already requested it to INFRA, see
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11045
> 
> Sorry if I was misunderstandable. I did that days ago, and in
> principle we have it already.
> 
 
 OK, so I close that issue. No problem, thanks.
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> 

Re: Abandoning Servlet 2.3 support?

[Ralph Goers]

That makes some sense I guess. Spring 3.2 isn’t scheduled to be EOL until the 
end of 2016.

That said, you could easily create a branch if you wanted to for any support 
required for that.  But not having looked at the code yet I have no idea 
whether that is necessary. I know we had very compelling reasons to jump up to 
Java 7 for Log4j.

Ralph

> On Oct 25, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> 
> Eh... do you know how perversely conservative FM is? :) It's the
> coming FreeMarker 2.3.24 that will raise the minimum Java version from
> 1.4 to 5. Before that, 2.3.23, which was about 6 months ago, has
> raised it from 1.2(!) to 1.4.
> 
> (Just so we don't look crazy... why Java 5? There was nothing critical
> for us in 6 yet (OK, number rounding modes, but I just call that via
> some conditional linking). Also Spring 3.x requires Java 5, hence if
> we want 2.3.24 to be part of a 3.x maintenance release, it can't
> require any higher.)
> 
> 
> Sunday, October 25, 2015, 5:23:31 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
>> Frankly, I would have dropped support for servlet 2.3 a while ago. 
>> Same for Java 5. Heck Log4j just made the minimum version Java 7.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We will need to call some Servlet 2.4 API-s, and I can solve it
>>> reflection and such, and by complication the build.xml a bit further.
>>> I just wonder if it worths it. Here's a bit of Servlet history:
>>> 
>>> Servlet 2.3 August 2001 J2EE 1.3, J2SE 1.2 JSP 1.2
>>> Servlet 2.4 November 2003   J2EE 1.4, J2SE 1.3 JSP 2.0
>>> Servlet 2.5 September 2005  JavaEE 5, JavaSE 5 JSP 2.1
>>> 
>>> 2.3.24 has already raised minimum Java version to 5, and minimum JSP
>>> version to 2.0 (that's the pair of Servlet 2.4). These had to be done,
>>> pretty much. Requiring 2.4 is not a must have, but I wonder if keeping
>>> it worths the complication...
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
> 

Re: Abandoning Servlet 2.3 support?

[Ralph Goers]

Frankly, I would have dropped support for servlet 2.3 a while ago.  Same for 
Java 5. Heck Log4j just made the minimum version Java 7.

Ralph

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:
> 
> We will need to call some Servlet 2.4 API-s, and I can solve it
> reflection and such, and by complication the build.xml a bit further.
> I just wonder if it worths it. Here's a bit of Servlet history:
> 
> Servlet 2.3 August 2001 J2EE 1.3, J2SE 1.2 JSP 1.2
> Servlet 2.4 November 2003   J2EE 1.4, J2SE 1.3 JSP 2.0
> Servlet 2.5 September 2005  JavaEE 5, JavaSE 5 JSP 2.1
> 
> 2.3.24 has already raised minimum Java version to 5, and minimum JSP
> version to 2.0 (that's the pair of Servlet 2.4). These had to be done,
> pretty much. Requiring 2.4 is not a must have, but I wonder if keeping
> it worths the complication...
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
> 
>