RE: Jakarta Sandbox (was [VOTE])
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 19:19 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Then there is no NEED for a sandbox. As you know, the sandbox predates the Incubator, and AIUI, the Sandbox exists so as to allow experiments without polluting the respository in such manner that would confuse the public and ourselves about what is real and what is play. There may be other ways in to achieve that goal. Agreed. I think much of the Sandbox concept owes its existence to the limitations of CVS, and that with Subversion and the recent jakarta-wide commit access a lot of the need for a sandbox is gone. A project which has ties to an existing one (eg a refactoring of common code out of a project into a common component) can be done in a sandbox subdir of that project (sibling to trunk/tags/branches). Discussion can be held on that project's lists. Oversight is provided by the committers on that related project. When it's ready to be promoted, a simple svn mv and the creation of a separate email list will do the job. For projects which are brand new but likely to become part of jakarta commons, the existing commons sandbox (using the existing commons-dev list) seems appropriate to me. Oversight is provided by the commons community. Of course if the project is a kind of language extension then it might want to hang out on the proposed commons-lang-components list instead of the original commons list. Projects that originate outside apache and are being brought in go through the incubator of course. Oversight is provided by those kind apache committers who subscribe to the incubator lists. The only problem I see is largish projects that are originated by existing Apache committers and have no close affiliation to existing projects. There aren't likely to be very many of these. I would suggest that if such a project can't find an existing project willing to effectively sponsor it by allowing their own list and subversion dir to be used to host the project for a while, then it belongs in incubation. The other issue to consider is where websites for sandbox-status projects can live. I think it would be nice to group these together, eg under jakarta.apache.org/sandbox. This provides a way for such projects to publish sites while making it clear to users that they aren't yet approved. To summarise: I suggest setting up a parent website for jakarta-wide sandbox stuff, and dropping the existing sandbox docs that encourage non-commons projects to come and play in the commons sandbox. Otherwise things can be pretty much left as they are... Cheers, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 00:48 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote: What would be the constraints on what could go in there? Anything, as long as it's written in or for Java? My fault, I thought we'd had a long thread on this before so didn't do much explaining. The same as Commons Sandbox contains potential Commons components, Jakarta Sandbox would be much the same but contain potential Jakarta components. Maybe I'm jumping the gun. Call me ignorant but that sounds like the incubator without incubation process. If you want to know about sandboxes, ask the Turbine people. We have had quite a number. Stratum, Fulcrum (which finally picked up speed), flux, jyve, origami, you've named it. A sandbox without a defined process that either promotes a project to become a real Jakarta project or calls quits and closes it (and moves it into archives) will IMHO lead to a lot of dead stuff. Look at sourceforge. While I like the basic idea of open source running free, my experiences from Turbine show that it does not work without at least some control. So I vote -0. I don't really like the idea but I'm not deeply enough in the discussion to veto it. Best regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Engineering Social behaviour: Bavarians can be extremely egalitarian and folksy. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria Most Franconians do not like to be called Bavarians. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franconia - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:31 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Yes. A lot of things predate the incubator. I'm not opposed to say an HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff. I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it scratchpad) for POI-related stuff. However Jakarta-sandbox is SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO. the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were entrusted to the commons sub-project. sub-projects have no formal existence. the scope of the sandbox is the same as the scope for jakarta. anything that is in scope for jakarta is in scope for sub-projects. code in other languages is pretty much out but nearly any subject is in scope. the only limits are imposed by the community itself. jakarta's scope is the problem but it's hard to fix for both historic and community reasons - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox
On 4/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:31 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Yes. A lot of things predate the incubator. I'm not opposed to say an HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff. I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it scratchpad) for POI-related stuff. However Jakarta-sandbox is SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO. the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were entrusted to the commons sub-project. sub-projects have no formal existence. the scope of the sandbox is the same as the scope for jakarta. anything that is in scope for jakarta is in scope for sub-projects. code in other languages is pretty much out but nearly any subject is in scope. the only limits are imposed by the community itself. When something graduates from this Jakarta Sandbox, where does it go? Being a _Jakarta_ sandbox, one might assume that it becomes a Jakarta subproject. But Hen has claimed to want to morph Jakarta into a non-umbrella, and graduating to a new Jakarta subproject would be counter to that goal. On the other hand, if it graduates to somewhere outside of Jakarta, why is the sandbox inside of Jakarta? -- Martin Cooper jakarta's scope is the problem but it's hard to fix for both historic and community reasons - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Martin Cooper wrote: On 4/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:31 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Yes. A lot of things predate the incubator. I'm not opposed to say an HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff. I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it scratchpad) for POI-related stuff. However Jakarta-sandbox is SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO. the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were entrusted to the commons sub-project. sub-projects have no formal existence. the scope of the sandbox is the same as the scope for jakarta. anything that is in scope for jakarta is in scope for sub-projects. code in other languages is pretty much out but nearly any subject is in scope. the only limits are imposed by the community itself. When something graduates from this Jakarta Sandbox, where does it go? Being a _Jakarta_ sandbox, one might assume that it becomes a Jakarta subproject. But Hen has claimed to want to morph Jakarta into a non-umbrella, and graduating to a new Jakarta subproject would be counter to that goal. On the other hand, if it graduates to somewhere outside of Jakarta, why is the sandbox inside of Jakarta? In my incoherent mind it's: Jakarta is Components Sandbox Things move from sandbox to components. Once there, they are arranged into groupings to smooth communication. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox
On 4/10/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Martin Cooper wrote: On 4/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:31 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Yes. A lot of things predate the incubator. I'm not opposed to say an HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff. I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it scratchpad) for POI-related stuff. However Jakarta-sandbox is SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO. the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were entrusted to the commons sub-project. sub-projects have no formal existence. the scope of the sandbox is the same as the scope for jakarta. anything that is in scope for jakarta is in scope for sub-projects. code in other languages is pretty much out but nearly any subject is in scope. the only limits are imposed by the community itself. When something graduates from this Jakarta Sandbox, where does it go? Being a _Jakarta_ sandbox, one might assume that it becomes a Jakarta subproject. But Hen has claimed to want to morph Jakarta into a non-umbrella, and graduating to a new Jakarta subproject would be counter to that goal. On the other hand, if it graduates to somewhere outside of Jakarta, why is the sandbox inside of Jakarta? In my incoherent mind it's: Jakarta is Components Sandbox Things move from sandbox to components. Once there, they are arranged into groupings to smooth communication. That would be fine if there was a well-defined scope for the sandbox. As Andy and others have pointed out, there is no scope right now. That means that someone could start, say, a new servlet container, or an OSGi framework, or whatever, that would have no reasonable place as a Jakarta Component. -- Martin Cooper Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox
However Jakarta-sandbox is SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO. Why on sourceforge - why not on our infrastructure? What the difference for you? You want every tiny (commons) library go through the incubator? ...or do you just don't want full projects sneak in through that sandbox? So far I don't understand why you are seeing this so problematic. cheers -- Torsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote: However Jakarta-sandbox is SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO. Why on sourceforge - why not on our infrastructure? What the difference for you? You want every tiny (commons) library go through the incubator? ...or do you just don't want full projects sneak in through that sandbox? So far I don't understand why you are seeing this so problematic. I think I get it. * If the scope of Jakarta = anything in Java, then a Jakarta Sandbox is a terrifying prospect. * If the scope of Jakarta is refined, then a Jakarta Sandbox would not be a problem. I think it's a pretty fair point for people to have. Will start another email based on Jakarta's scope. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jakarta Scope
At jakarta.apache.org we say: 1/ The Jakarta Project offers a diverse set of open source Java solutions and is a part of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) which encourages a collaborative, consensus-based development process under an open software license. 2/ Our charter (http://jakarta.apache.org/site/management.html) says nothing about scope. The Commons charter says: 3/ Apache-Java and Jakarta originally hosted product-based subprojects, consisting of one major deliverable. The Java language however is package-based, and most of these products have many useful utilities. Some products are beginning to break these out so that they can be used independently. A Jakarta subproject to solely create and maintain independent packages is proposed to accelerate and guide this process. In terms of scope restriction, all three are pretty empty. I think our scope is: *** Components that are, a) written in and/or for the Java environment b) too small in the long-term to be their own independent communities *** Which isn't much, but I can't think of a lot more to add. It's really the same scope for both Jakarta and Commons - the only difference is the concept of size. Currently in Commons, too small means too small to be a Jakarta subproject, while in Jakarta it means too small to be an Apache TLP. In the direction I suggest we should take, too small means the latter - too small to be an Apache TLP. That still leaves Incubator vs Sandbox issues. Commons Math is one such example - in scope it could be an entire open source foundation. We've occasionally talked about it becoming a math.apache.org someday, but currently it's only really just starting to approach the feel of a current Jakarta subproject in size (same number of lines of code as bcel for example). How do you draw the line on potential long-term scope vs likely long-term scope? From memory, you talk about it on the mailing list until everyone involved in the conversation is happy with the idea. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox
Why? Do you need something to do? I have many unworked open source tasks that I could pass on. I'm happy to help you along on them. Seriously. Henri Yandell wrote: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote: However Jakarta-sandbox is SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO. Why on sourceforge - why not on our infrastructure? What the difference for you? You want every tiny (commons) library go through the incubator? ...or do you just don't want full projects sneak in through that sandbox? So far I don't understand why you are seeing this so problematic. I think I get it. * If the scope of Jakarta = anything in Java, then a Jakarta Sandbox is a terrifying prospect. * If the scope of Jakarta is refined, then a Jakarta Sandbox would not be a problem. I think it's a pretty fair point for people to have. Will start another email based on Jakarta's scope. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
