Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, apparently interested in being champion, rendering the whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an appropriate next step other than simply forgetting about incubating? I would be prepared to do this - although I'm pretty much a newbie in incubator terms (I joined [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few months back and have mostly sat and watched) so probably almost anyone else would be better qualified - and if such a person comes along would happily step back - no offence taken. Niall -Matt --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Matt Benson wrote: > > >> > --- Niall Pemberton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > [SNIP] > > >> >> I didn't know whether this had been done > before in > > >> >> Commons - but seems > > >> >> that it has for the Commons CSV component > back in > > >> >> December 2005: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html > > >> > > > >> > Actually I knew about this but thought I > remembered > > >> > someone (Henri?) saying later that having > gotten the > > >> > code in this way might not have been the best > choice > > >> > in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with > anyone? > > >> > > >> Yep that rings a bell and going down that route > again, is not > > >> something that has my support for > > >> *new* components (which this is). If the code > is destined for an > > >> existing codebase, we could do the > > >> IP route, else I would like to see some level > of incubation (besides > > >> handling ip). See the > > >> discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. > > > > > > I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a > slightly different > > > situation to either CSV or the SSL situations > since one of the > > > developers is an existing ASF and Commons > committer. > > > > There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri > is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me > > too, although we are both not very active). I > think when new people are involved incubation > (besides > > legal) should occur (even though the community > import isn't that big, compared to similar situation > > like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core > developers are actually ASF Members) > > > > In case of this scenario (and ssl) I "envision" > this for incubation : > > > > - Get the people on board as a committer on the > initial proposal > > - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for > an x amount of time > > - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although > I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit > > strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator > thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a > > vibrant community, although within commons it > definitely will be!). > > - Get a release out. > > > > If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I > am ok with that, but rather not see new code > > again hitting the sandbox, since we "don't" accept > new committers on sandbox components and it > > doesn't have the ability to have a release > (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because > of a > > sandbox component, ahum). > > > > I highly prefer that incubating commons components > to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, > > since to do development however, since it would be > quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator > > specific lists to the commons ones. > > > > Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would > love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I > > think we also need to figure out how we should > handle that in a constructive way and prevent > > feedparser and csv situations. > > OK, good explanation - sounds reasonable to me. > You're right going the > incubator route would bring Matt Sgarlata in with > the code which would > be more desirable. > > Niall > > > Mvgr, > > Martin > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/9/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to > > square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, > > apparently interested in being champion, rendering > the > > whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an > appropriate > > next step other than simply forgetting about > > incubating? > > No need to forget it if you don't find a champion > soon. Patience and > continued development of the project and the > community around it can > pay off. More interest may come in time. For > instance, i've no time > to take up the cause of a project that i'm not using > at work, but > you've piqued my curiousity about the project. When > next i need > conversion support such as it provides, i'll be sure > to investigate > Morph more deeply as an alternative to just > BeanUtils. Then, schedule > permitting, i might be willing to help with > incubation, as it would be > more in my interest. I wouldn't be surprised if > others are thinking > much as i am here. > Thanks for chiming in with that. :) I do intend in any case to continue to help Morph develop to the point of being the serious contender that it deserves to be; I just would rather do it in the setting of the ASF. Yeah, i don't blame you. :) br, Matt [SNIP] Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html - 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]
Re: An Official Request For Moving Cactus In The Incubator
>> > All right, > > I get it now. Thank you Martin. Yes, It sounds now more reasonable to move > in the incubator. Sorry you didn't get it :) (probably me though, mailing too much today). I was saying that I think Cactus can gather enough votes in the current situation for eg a release (so without a need to go through the incubator), so the Incubator path isn't needed (at least the way I look at it). Exception of course is the legal part :), besides that we are taling about an existing Jakarta codebase here. If people think the cactus should go back to the incubator, because of a lack of vibrant community and not being able to release, because of the 3 +1's, we probably shouldn't stop there , and start shipping other Jakarta (sub and subsub) projects to the incubator. In this case Felipe was keeping tabs on what you were doing (and if I understood correctly Felipe currently hasn't much time left to work on Cactus, but is still interested) and Kenney Westerhof also worked on a cactus plugin for maven2, so he could also be a candidate to become active on cactus.. So the path will probable be (got no objections on this when sending this to private) - Get your paperwork done (Code grant, icla, ccla) - Have a vote on cactus-dev / general to accept your codebase into Cactus - Do the incubator paperwork, start a vote there (based on lazy consensus, so if no one objects, the code is accepted) - Start a vote (on cactus-dev / general) to add you as a Jakarta committer. No difference in this scenario with Mantissa/Luc path (to give an example) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
--- Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/9/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to > > square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, > > apparently interested in being champion, rendering > the > > whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an > appropriate > > next step other than simply forgetting about > > incubating? > > No need to forget it if you don't find a champion > soon. Patience and > continued development of the project and the > community around it can > pay off. More interest may come in time. For > instance, i've no time > to take up the cause of a project that i'm not using > at work, but > you've piqued my curiousity about the project. When > next i need > conversion support such as it provides, i'll be sure > to investigate > Morph more deeply as an alternative to just > BeanUtils. Then, schedule > permitting, i might be willing to help with > incubation, as it would be > more in my interest. I wouldn't be surprised if > others are thinking > much as i am here. > Thanks for chiming in with that. :) I do intend in any case to continue to help Morph develop to the point of being the serious contender that it deserves to be; I just would rather do it in the setting of the ASF. br, Matt [SNIP] Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, apparently interested in being champion, rendering the whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an appropriate next step other than simply forgetting about incubating? No need to forget it if you don't find a champion soon. Patience and continued development of the project and the community around it can pay off. More interest may come in time. For instance, i've no time to take up the cause of a project that i'm not using at work, but you've piqued my curiousity about the project. When next i need conversion support such as it provides, i'll be sure to investigate Morph more deeply as an alternative to just BeanUtils. Then, schedule permitting, i might be willing to help with incubation, as it would be more in my interest. I wouldn't be surprised if others are thinking much as i am here. -Matt --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Matt Benson wrote: > > >> > --- Niall Pemberton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > [SNIP] > > >> >> I didn't know whether this had been done > before in > > >> >> Commons - but seems > > >> >> that it has for the Commons CSV component > back in > > >> >> December 2005: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html > > >> > > > >> > Actually I knew about this but thought I > remembered > > >> > someone (Henri?) saying later that having > gotten the > > >> > code in this way might not have been the best > choice > > >> > in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with > anyone? > > >> > > >> Yep that rings a bell and going down that route > again, is not > > >> something that has my support for > > >> *new* components (which this is). If the code > is destined for an > > >> existing codebase, we could do the > > >> IP route, else I would like to see some level > of incubation (besides > > >> handling ip). See the > > >> discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. > > > > > > I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a > slightly different > > > situation to either CSV or the SSL situations > since one of the > > > developers is an existing ASF and Commons > committer. > > > > There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri > is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me > > too, although we are both not very active). I > think when new people are involved incubation > (besides > > legal) should occur (even though the community > import isn't that big, compared to similar situation > > like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core > developers are actually ASF Members) > > > > In case of this scenario (and ssl) I "envision" > this for incubation : > > > > - Get the people on board as a committer on the > initial proposal > > - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for > an x amount of time > > - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although > I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit > > strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator > thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a > > vibrant community, although within commons it > definitely will be!). > > - Get a release out. > > > > If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I > am ok with that, but rather not see new code > > again hitting the sandbox, since we "don't" accept > new committers on sandbox components and it > > doesn't have the ability to have a release > (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because > of a > > sandbox component, ahum). > > > > I highly prefer that incubating commons components > to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, > > since to do development however, since it would be > quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator > > specific lists to the commons ones. > > > > Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would > love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I > > think we also need to figure out how we should > handle that in a constructive way and prevent > > feedparser and csv situations. > > OK, good explanation - sounds reasonable to me. > You're right going the > incubator route would bring Matt Sgarlata in with > the code which would > be more desirable. > > Niall > > > Mvgr, > > Martin > > > > > - > > 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] > > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/sh
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, apparently interested in being champion, rendering the whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an appropriate next step other than simply forgetting about incubating? -Matt --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Matt Benson wrote: > > >> > --- Niall Pemberton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > [SNIP] > > >> >> I didn't know whether this had been done > before in > > >> >> Commons - but seems > > >> >> that it has for the Commons CSV component > back in > > >> >> December 2005: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html > > >> > > > >> > Actually I knew about this but thought I > remembered > > >> > someone (Henri?) saying later that having > gotten the > > >> > code in this way might not have been the best > choice > > >> > in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with > anyone? > > >> > > >> Yep that rings a bell and going down that route > again, is not > > >> something that has my support for > > >> *new* components (which this is). If the code > is destined for an > > >> existing codebase, we could do the > > >> IP route, else I would like to see some level > of incubation (besides > > >> handling ip). See the > > >> discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. > > > > > > I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a > slightly different > > > situation to either CSV or the SSL situations > since one of the > > > developers is an existing ASF and Commons > committer. > > > > There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri > is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me > > too, although we are both not very active). I > think when new people are involved incubation > (besides > > legal) should occur (even though the community > import isn't that big, compared to similar situation > > like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core > developers are actually ASF Members) > > > > In case of this scenario (and ssl) I "envision" > this for incubation : > > > > - Get the people on board as a committer on the > initial proposal > > - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for > an x amount of time > > - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although > I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit > > strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator > thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a > > vibrant community, although within commons it > definitely will be!). > > - Get a release out. > > > > If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I > am ok with that, but rather not see new code > > again hitting the sandbox, since we "don't" accept > new committers on sandbox components and it > > doesn't have the ability to have a release > (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because > of a > > sandbox component, ahum). > > > > I highly prefer that incubating commons components > to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, > > since to do development however, since it would be > quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator > > specific lists to the commons ones. > > > > Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would > love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I > > think we also need to figure out how we should > handle that in a constructive way and prevent > > feedparser and csv situations. > > OK, good explanation - sounds reasonable to me. > You're right going the > incubator route would bring Matt Sgarlata in with > the code which would > be more desirable. > > Niall > > > Mvgr, > > Martin > > > > > - > > 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] > > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: An Official Request For Moving Cactus In The Incubator
On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I know that you are busy, but I have another idea that came to me reading >> the Matt Benson's post. In fact the guys are >> dealing with a project that seems to be inspired the jakarta commons >> Convert >> project and so it would be possible to >> accept the code without passing through the incubator. So why isnt' this >> situation possible for Cactus (I mean I have refactored existing code and >> added the maven xml files - it is not a new project). >> >> I also agree that passing through the incubator is the best solution >> in the >> great majority of cases, but in my opinion there are still some cases >> (like >> Cactus for instance) that are threatened of stalling even more. > > Martin or others may answer this better - but AIUI one of the two > primary goals of the incubator is building community around code > bases. This is not just a "nice thing" at Apache - its an absolute > necessity. As an example under Apache rules without 3 votes from the > PMC (project management committee) responsible for a project you can't > release anything. Once a project falls below that critical level of > involved people its basically dead in the water as far as releasing > any software goes. In the case of a project like Cactus the main > reason for going back to the incubator would be to re-create a viable > community. > From what I understood from current people that have cactus on their radar and have sufficient "power" to vote, Cactus will be able to get a release out the door. An another note : After incubation it could still be that you cannot get a release out the door if you end up at Jakarta, depending on the fact if you actually make it on the Jakarta PMC. This is also one of the reasons an Incubator project should have 3 mentors, so they can actually release, without depending on the time of people not directly involved. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] All right, I get it now. Thank you Martin. Yes, It sounds now more reasonable to move in the incubator. On more thing: when we move to incubator, who is going to be the incubation champion and the projecty mentors? Thank you Niall for the link. I read the licenses that are listed there. Sorry my negligence about this stuff. :-) Waiting for the further annotation on the status of setting the project in the incubator. P.S. If there is anything I can help, please feel free to let me know. -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. Public PGP Key at: http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1A15B53B761500F9 Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9
Re: An Official Request For Moving Cactus In The Incubator
>> >> I know that you are busy, but I have another idea that came to me reading >> the Matt Benson's post. In fact the guys are >> dealing with a project that seems to be inspired the jakarta commons >> Convert >> project and so it would be possible to >> accept the code without passing through the incubator. So why isnt' this >> situation possible for Cactus (I mean I have refactored existing code and >> added the maven xml files - it is not a new project). >> >> I also agree that passing through the incubator is the best solution >> in the >> great majority of cases, but in my opinion there are still some cases >> (like >> Cactus for instance) that are threatened of stalling even more. > > Martin or others may answer this better - but AIUI one of the two > primary goals of the incubator is building community around code > bases. This is not just a "nice thing" at Apache - its an absolute > necessity. As an example under Apache rules without 3 votes from the > PMC (project management committee) responsible for a project you can't > release anything. Once a project falls below that critical level of > involved people its basically dead in the water as far as releasing > any software goes. In the case of a project like Cactus the main > reason for going back to the incubator would be to re-create a viable > community. > >From what I understood from current people that have cactus on their radar and >have sufficient "power" to vote, Cactus will be able to get a release out the door. An another note : After incubation it could still be that you cannot get a release out the door if you end up at Jakarta, depending on the fact if you actually make it on the Jakarta PMC. This is also one of the reasons an Incubator project should have 3 mentors, so they can actually release, without depending on the time of people not directly involved. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: An Official Request For Moving Cactus In The Incubator
On 3/9/07, Petar Tahchiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hence the reason I wanted to wait for a response till I had more time > (still busy).. My approach for > you would have been : get a software grant, ccla and icla on file and > start a vote on you being a > committer for cactus, I just failed horribly to send out that mail (btw > sending in those documents > is what legal incubation is about). > > I will send you some links for this, if you didn't figure it out earlier > or someone else beats me to > it.. > > Since there is still enough interest in Cactus I think that new activity > will be enough to get more > people aboard and get the ball rolling again :) > > Mvgr, > Martin > > Petar Tahchiev wrote: > > On 3/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> will come back to this on friday.. > >> > >> Mvgr, > >> Martin > >> > >> Petar Tahchiev wrote: > >> > Hello guys, > >> > > >> > first of all let me introduce myself. My name is Petar Tahchiev and > >> I am > >> > from Bulgaria. > >> > > >> > I wanted to enroll in the last-years Google Summer Of Code > >> > where I applied with the > >> > project of migrating the Cactus build system to Maven. > >> Unfortunatelly me > >> > and > >> > Felipe Leme (my mentor), who I would like to thank once again for the > >> > encouragement > >> > and the help he provided me, weren't qualified. Later I had a > >> > few personal issues to solve, but the point is that I continued to > work > >> on > >> > my own and sooner I managed to > >> > migrate the Cactus project to be built with Maven. > >> > > >> > When everything was done I started submitting patches in the cactus > >> jira, > >> > for some known bugs. The problem with the patch of the build system > was > >> > that > >> > it turned out to be very large so I couldn't apply it in the jira. > Then > >> me > >> > and Felipe agreed that it would be better to move the cactus to a > >> separate > >> > repository > >> > and test the build system there (you understand that the new build > >> > structure > >> > was absolutely different from the old one and merging was a kind of a > >> tough > >> > task). > >> > So I got my work and imported it in my own repository at the > >> > sourceforge.netwhere we began testing. The point is that when we > >> > wanted to apply the > >> > changes in the > >> > cactus trunk in the Apache repository we were adviced by Martin van > den > >> > Bemt > >> > that we have to ask that the project be moved in the incubator first > >> and > >> > then when the > >> > code is appropriate for the cactus's trunk move it in the trunk. > >> > > >> > Now the process of moving Cactus in the incubator is stalled, as > >> well as > >> > >> > our > >> > work on it, because I want to move it in the incubator, before I > >> > continue making > >> > > >> > additional changes and implementing new features. > >> > > >> > So my request to you guys is this: if anyone can help us move the > code > >> in > >> > the incubator, he is more than wellcome. > >> > Thank you very much. > >> > > >> > P.S. You may find additional information of the whole process here: > >> > > >> > [1] > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg08579.html > >> > [2] http://www.nabble.com/Question-About-the-Current-State-Of > >> > -Cactus-In-the-Incubator-t361.html > >> > > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > Ok, no problem. > > > > I know that you are busy, but I have another idea that came to me > reading > > the Matt Benson's post. In fact the guys are > > dealing with a project that seems to be inspired the jakarta commons > > Convert > > project and so it would be possible to > > accept the code without passing through the incubator. So why isnt' this > > situation possible for Cactus (I mean I have refactored existing code > and > > added the maven xml files - it is not a new project). > > > > I also agree that passing through the incubator is the best solution in > the > > great majority of cases, but in my opinion there are still some cases > (like > > Cactus for instance) that are threatened of stalling even more. > > > > P.S. Personaly for me, I am happy with both of the solutions - with or > > without the incubator. My desire is to start working on the project as > soon > > as possible because we are planning of implementing some new features > and > > then releasing a RC. > > > > Looking forward to your reply. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It would be better you send me those links, since I have no idea what a software grant, ccla and icla is :-). Ok waiting for the links. http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas Niall Greeting
Re: An Official Request For Moving Cactus In The Incubator
On 3/9/07, Petar Tahchiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > will come back to this on friday.. > > Mvgr, > Martin > > Petar Tahchiev wrote: > > Hello guys, > > > > first of all let me introduce myself. My name is Petar Tahchiev and I am > > from Bulgaria. > > > > I wanted to enroll in the last-years Google Summer Of Code > > where I applied with the > > project of migrating the Cactus build system to Maven. Unfortunatelly me > > and > > Felipe Leme (my mentor), who I would like to thank once again for the > > encouragement > > and the help he provided me, weren't qualified. Later I had a > > few personal issues to solve, but the point is that I continued to work > on > > my own and sooner I managed to > > migrate the Cactus project to be built with Maven. > > > > When everything was done I started submitting patches in the cactus > jira, > > for some known bugs. The problem with the patch of the build system was > > that > > it turned out to be very large so I couldn't apply it in the jira. Then > me > > and Felipe agreed that it would be better to move the cactus to a > separate > > repository > > and test the build system there (you understand that the new build > > structure > > was absolutely different from the old one and merging was a kind of a > tough > > task). > > So I got my work and imported it in my own repository at the > > sourceforge.netwhere we began testing. The point is that when we > > wanted to apply the > > changes in the > > cactus trunk in the Apache repository we were adviced by Martin van den > > Bemt > > that we have to ask that the project be moved in the incubator first and > > then when the > > code is appropriate for the cactus's trunk move it in the trunk. > > > > Now the process of moving Cactus in the incubator is stalled, as well as > > > our > > work on it, because I want to move it in the incubator, before I > > continue making > > > > additional changes and implementing new features. > > > > So my request to you guys is this: if anyone can help us move the code > in > > the incubator, he is more than wellcome. > > Thank you very much. > > > > P.S. You may find additional information of the whole process here: > > > > [1] > http://www.mail-archive.com/cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg08579.html > > [2] http://www.nabble.com/Question-About-the-Current-State-Of > > -Cactus-In-the-Incubator-t361.html > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ok, no problem. I know that you are busy, but I have another idea that came to me reading the Matt Benson's post. In fact the guys are dealing with a project that seems to be inspired the jakarta commons Convert project and so it would be possible to accept the code without passing through the incubator. So why isnt' this situation possible for Cactus (I mean I have refactored existing code and added the maven xml files - it is not a new project). I also agree that passing through the incubator is the best solution in the great majority of cases, but in my opinion there are still some cases (like Cactus for instance) that are threatened of stalling even more. Martin or others may answer this better - but AIUI one of the two primary goals of the incubator is building community around code bases. This is not just a "nice thing" at Apache - its an absolute necessity. As an example under Apache rules without 3 votes from the PMC (project management committee) responsible for a project you can't release anything. Once a project falls below that critical level of involved people its basically dead in the water as far as releasing any software goes. In the case of a project like Cactus the main reason for going back to the incubator would be to re-create a viable community. Niall P.S. Personaly for me, I am happy with both of the solutions - with or without the incubator. My desire is to start working on the project as soon as possible because we are planning of implementing some new features and then releasing a RC. Looking forward to your reply. -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. Public PGP Key at: http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1A15B53B761500F9 Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: > On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Matt Benson wrote: >> > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > [SNIP] >> >> I didn't know whether this had been done before in >> >> Commons - but seems >> >> that it has for the Commons CSV component back in >> >> December 2005: >> >> >> >> >> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html >> > >> > Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered >> > someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the >> > code in this way might not have been the best choice >> > in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? >> >> Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not >> something that has my support for >> *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an >> existing codebase, we could do the >> IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides >> handling ip). See the >> discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. > > I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a slightly different > situation to either CSV or the SSL situations since one of the > developers is an existing ASF and Commons committer. There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me too, although we are both not very active). I think when new people are involved incubation (besides legal) should occur (even though the community import isn't that big, compared to similar situation like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core developers are actually ASF Members) In case of this scenario (and ssl) I "envision" this for incubation : - Get the people on board as a committer on the initial proposal - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for an x amount of time - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a vibrant community, although within commons it definitely will be!). - Get a release out. If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I am ok with that, but rather not see new code again hitting the sandbox, since we "don't" accept new committers on sandbox components and it doesn't have the ability to have a release (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because of a sandbox component, ahum). I highly prefer that incubating commons components to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, since to do development however, since it would be quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator specific lists to the commons ones. Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I think we also need to figure out how we should handle that in a constructive way and prevent feedparser and csv situations. OK, good explanation - sounds reasonable to me. You're right going the incubator route would bring Matt Sgarlata in with the code which would be more desirable. Niall Mvgr, Martin - 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]
Re: An Official Request For Moving Cactus In The Incubator
On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hence the reason I wanted to wait for a response till I had more time (still busy).. My approach for you would have been : get a software grant, ccla and icla on file and start a vote on you being a committer for cactus, I just failed horribly to send out that mail (btw sending in those documents is what legal incubation is about). I will send you some links for this, if you didn't figure it out earlier or someone else beats me to it.. Since there is still enough interest in Cactus I think that new activity will be enough to get more people aboard and get the ball rolling again :) Mvgr, Martin Petar Tahchiev wrote: > On 3/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> will come back to this on friday.. >> >> Mvgr, >> Martin >> >> Petar Tahchiev wrote: >> > Hello guys, >> > >> > first of all let me introduce myself. My name is Petar Tahchiev and >> I am >> > from Bulgaria. >> > >> > I wanted to enroll in the last-years Google Summer Of Code >> > where I applied with the >> > project of migrating the Cactus build system to Maven. >> Unfortunatelly me >> > and >> > Felipe Leme (my mentor), who I would like to thank once again for the >> > encouragement >> > and the help he provided me, weren't qualified. Later I had a >> > few personal issues to solve, but the point is that I continued to work >> on >> > my own and sooner I managed to >> > migrate the Cactus project to be built with Maven. >> > >> > When everything was done I started submitting patches in the cactus >> jira, >> > for some known bugs. The problem with the patch of the build system was >> > that >> > it turned out to be very large so I couldn't apply it in the jira. Then >> me >> > and Felipe agreed that it would be better to move the cactus to a >> separate >> > repository >> > and test the build system there (you understand that the new build >> > structure >> > was absolutely different from the old one and merging was a kind of a >> tough >> > task). >> > So I got my work and imported it in my own repository at the >> > sourceforge.netwhere we began testing. The point is that when we >> > wanted to apply the >> > changes in the >> > cactus trunk in the Apache repository we were adviced by Martin van den >> > Bemt >> > that we have to ask that the project be moved in the incubator first >> and >> > then when the >> > code is appropriate for the cactus's trunk move it in the trunk. >> > >> > Now the process of moving Cactus in the incubator is stalled, as >> well as >> >> > our >> > work on it, because I want to move it in the incubator, before I >> > continue making >> > >> > additional changes and implementing new features. >> > >> > So my request to you guys is this: if anyone can help us move the code >> in >> > the incubator, he is more than wellcome. >> > Thank you very much. >> > >> > P.S. You may find additional information of the whole process here: >> > >> > [1] >> http://www.mail-archive.com/cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg08579.html >> > [2] http://www.nabble.com/Question-About-the-Current-State-Of >> > -Cactus-In-the-Incubator-t361.html >> > >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > Ok, no problem. > > I know that you are busy, but I have another idea that came to me reading > the Matt Benson's post. In fact the guys are > dealing with a project that seems to be inspired the jakarta commons > Convert > project and so it would be possible to > accept the code without passing through the incubator. So why isnt' this > situation possible for Cactus (I mean I have refactored existing code and > added the maven xml files - it is not a new project). > > I also agree that passing through the incubator is the best solution in the > great majority of cases, but in my opinion there are still some cases (like > Cactus for instance) that are threatened of stalling even more. > > P.S. Personaly for me, I am happy with both of the solutions - with or > without the incubator. My desire is to start working on the project as soon > as possible because we are planning of implementing some new features and > then releasing a RC. > > Looking forward to your reply. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It would be better you send me those links, since I have no idea what a software grant, ccla and icla is :-). Ok waiting for the links. Greetings. -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. Public PGP Key at: http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1A15B53B761500F9 Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9
Re: An Official Request For Moving Cactus In The Incubator
Hence the reason I wanted to wait for a response till I had more time (still busy).. My approach for you would have been : get a software grant, ccla and icla on file and start a vote on you being a committer for cactus, I just failed horribly to send out that mail (btw sending in those documents is what legal incubation is about). I will send you some links for this, if you didn't figure it out earlier or someone else beats me to it.. Since there is still enough interest in Cactus I think that new activity will be enough to get more people aboard and get the ball rolling again :) Mvgr, Martin Petar Tahchiev wrote: > On 3/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> will come back to this on friday.. >> >> Mvgr, >> Martin >> >> Petar Tahchiev wrote: >> > Hello guys, >> > >> > first of all let me introduce myself. My name is Petar Tahchiev and >> I am >> > from Bulgaria. >> > >> > I wanted to enroll in the last-years Google Summer Of Code >> > where I applied with the >> > project of migrating the Cactus build system to Maven. >> Unfortunatelly me >> > and >> > Felipe Leme (my mentor), who I would like to thank once again for the >> > encouragement >> > and the help he provided me, weren't qualified. Later I had a >> > few personal issues to solve, but the point is that I continued to work >> on >> > my own and sooner I managed to >> > migrate the Cactus project to be built with Maven. >> > >> > When everything was done I started submitting patches in the cactus >> jira, >> > for some known bugs. The problem with the patch of the build system was >> > that >> > it turned out to be very large so I couldn't apply it in the jira. Then >> me >> > and Felipe agreed that it would be better to move the cactus to a >> separate >> > repository >> > and test the build system there (you understand that the new build >> > structure >> > was absolutely different from the old one and merging was a kind of a >> tough >> > task). >> > So I got my work and imported it in my own repository at the >> > sourceforge.netwhere we began testing. The point is that when we >> > wanted to apply the >> > changes in the >> > cactus trunk in the Apache repository we were adviced by Martin van den >> > Bemt >> > that we have to ask that the project be moved in the incubator first >> and >> > then when the >> > code is appropriate for the cactus's trunk move it in the trunk. >> > >> > Now the process of moving Cactus in the incubator is stalled, as >> well as >> >> > our >> > work on it, because I want to move it in the incubator, before I >> > continue making >> > >> > additional changes and implementing new features. >> > >> > So my request to you guys is this: if anyone can help us move the code >> in >> > the incubator, he is more than wellcome. >> > Thank you very much. >> > >> > P.S. You may find additional information of the whole process here: >> > >> > [1] >> http://www.mail-archive.com/cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg08579.html >> > [2] http://www.nabble.com/Question-About-the-Current-State-Of >> > -Cactus-In-the-Incubator-t361.html >> > >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > Ok, no problem. > > I know that you are busy, but I have another idea that came to me reading > the Matt Benson's post. In fact the guys are > dealing with a project that seems to be inspired the jakarta commons > Convert > project and so it would be possible to > accept the code without passing through the incubator. So why isnt' this > situation possible for Cactus (I mean I have refactored existing code and > added the maven xml files - it is not a new project). > > I also agree that passing through the incubator is the best solution in the > great majority of cases, but in my opinion there are still some cases (like > Cactus for instance) that are threatened of stalling even more. > > P.S. Personaly for me, I am happy with both of the solutions - with or > without the incubator. My desire is to start working on the project as soon > as possible because we are planning of implementing some new features and > then releasing a RC. > > Looking forward to your reply. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: An Official Request For Moving Cactus In The Incubator
On 3/7/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: will come back to this on friday.. Mvgr, Martin Petar Tahchiev wrote: > Hello guys, > > first of all let me introduce myself. My name is Petar Tahchiev and I am > from Bulgaria. > > I wanted to enroll in the last-years Google Summer Of Code > where I applied with the > project of migrating the Cactus build system to Maven. Unfortunatelly me > and > Felipe Leme (my mentor), who I would like to thank once again for the > encouragement > and the help he provided me, weren't qualified. Later I had a > few personal issues to solve, but the point is that I continued to work on > my own and sooner I managed to > migrate the Cactus project to be built with Maven. > > When everything was done I started submitting patches in the cactus jira, > for some known bugs. The problem with the patch of the build system was > that > it turned out to be very large so I couldn't apply it in the jira. Then me > and Felipe agreed that it would be better to move the cactus to a separate > repository > and test the build system there (you understand that the new build > structure > was absolutely different from the old one and merging was a kind of a tough > task). > So I got my work and imported it in my own repository at the > sourceforge.netwhere we began testing. The point is that when we > wanted to apply the > changes in the > cactus trunk in the Apache repository we were adviced by Martin van den > Bemt > that we have to ask that the project be moved in the incubator first and > then when the > code is appropriate for the cactus's trunk move it in the trunk. > > Now the process of moving Cactus in the incubator is stalled, as well as > our > work on it, because I want to move it in the incubator, before I > continue making > > additional changes and implementing new features. > > So my request to you guys is this: if anyone can help us move the code in > the incubator, he is more than wellcome. > Thank you very much. > > P.S. You may find additional information of the whole process here: > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg08579.html > [2] http://www.nabble.com/Question-About-the-Current-State-Of > -Cactus-In-the-Incubator-t361.html > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, no problem. I know that you are busy, but I have another idea that came to me reading the Matt Benson's post. In fact the guys are dealing with a project that seems to be inspired the jakarta commons Convert project and so it would be possible to accept the code without passing through the incubator. So why isnt' this situation possible for Cactus (I mean I have refactored existing code and added the maven xml files - it is not a new project). I also agree that passing through the incubator is the best solution in the great majority of cases, but in my opinion there are still some cases (like Cactus for instance) that are threatened of stalling even more. P.S. Personaly for me, I am happy with both of the solutions - with or without the incubator. My desire is to start working on the project as soon as possible because we are planning of implementing some new features and then releasing a RC. Looking forward to your reply. -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. Public PGP Key at: http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1A15B53B761500F9 Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
Niall Pemberton wrote: > On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Matt Benson wrote: >> > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > [SNIP] >> >> I didn't know whether this had been done before in >> >> Commons - but seems >> >> that it has for the Commons CSV component back in >> >> December 2005: >> >> >> >> >> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html >> > >> > Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered >> > someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the >> > code in this way might not have been the best choice >> > in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? >> >> Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not >> something that has my support for >> *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an >> existing codebase, we could do the >> IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides >> handling ip). See the >> discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. > > I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a slightly different > situation to either CSV or the SSL situations since one of the > developers is an existing ASF and Commons committer. There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me too, although we are both not very active). I think when new people are involved incubation (besides legal) should occur (even though the community import isn't that big, compared to similar situation like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core developers are actually ASF Members) In case of this scenario (and ssl) I "envision" this for incubation : - Get the people on board as a committer on the initial proposal - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for an x amount of time - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a vibrant community, although within commons it definitely will be!). - Get a release out. If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I am ok with that, but rather not see new code again hitting the sandbox, since we "don't" accept new committers on sandbox components and it doesn't have the ability to have a release (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because of a sandbox component, ahum). I highly prefer that incubating commons components to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, since to do development however, since it would be quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator specific lists to the commons ones. Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I think we also need to figure out how we should handle that in a constructive way and prevent feedparser and csv situations. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matt Benson wrote: > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [SNIP] >> I didn't know whether this had been done before in >> Commons - but seems >> that it has for the Commons CSV component back in >> December 2005: >> >> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html > > Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered > someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the > code in this way might not have been the best choice > in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not something that has my support for *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an existing codebase, we could do the IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides handling ip). See the discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a slightly different situation to either CSV or the SSL situations since one of the developers is an existing ASF and Commons committer. Niall On another note : If there will be no mentors for the project from Jakarta, I don't see a reason that Jakarta be the sponsor of the project. Not that this is a documented Incubator policy however, but since 1) we have a lot of people who are allowed to be a member and 2) the project should have active guidance from the community where it is destined to end up (esp important in a commons situation). I am planning to start a thread on these kind of situations on incubator general to gather thoughts. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
> On another note : If there will be no mentors for the project from Jakarta, I > don't see a reason > that Jakarta be the sponsor of the project. Not that this is a documented > Incubator policy however, > but since 1) we have a lot of people who are allowed to be a member Replace member with mentor :) People who are allowed are normally members of the ASF. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
Matt Benson wrote: > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [SNIP] >> I didn't know whether this had been done before in >> Commons - but seems >> that it has for the Commons CSV component back in >> December 2005: >> >> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html > > Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered > someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the > code in this way might not have been the best choice > in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not something that has my support for *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an existing codebase, we could do the IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides handling ip). See the discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. On another note : If there will be no mentors for the project from Jakarta, I don't see a reason that Jakarta be the sponsor of the project. Not that this is a documented Incubator policy however, but since 1) we have a lot of people who are allowed to be a member and 2) the project should have active guidance from the community where it is destined to end up (esp important in a commons situation). I am planning to start a thread on these kind of situations on incubator general to gather thoughts. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
