Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
It's very hard to have fun with testing, especially when a job shall be repeated again and again. Maybe a robot can do that when there is a standard. On 7/11/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jesse Kuhnert wrote: The Rack conjures up images having nothing to do with torture for me. (probably because I'm such a filthy animal) ;) I guess software quality would be much higher if more people had *fun* with testing... ;-) cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
But testing ~is~ fun when you know from experience how much time it is saving you. (sort of...as fun as programming can be right? who said we weren't robots ? ;) ) On 7/11/06, Han ChuanBing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's very hard to have fun with testing, especially when a job shall be repeated again and again. Maybe a robot can do that when there is a standard. On 7/11/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jesse Kuhnert wrote: The Rack conjures up images having nothing to do with torture for me. (probably because I'm such a filthy animal) ;) I guess software quality would be much higher if more people had *fun* with testing... ;-) cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jesse Kuhnert Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Hi folks, what has happened to this thread? Ever since Henri wrote that it's heading in the right direction, it seems to be dead. Bad beer chitchat hangover? Summer break? Everyone busy watching soccer? Or were my last suggestions so far off that they don't even deserve a response? Just to get discussion starting again, here is yet another alternative name suggestion: The Rack in reminiscence of a 70s british TV series :-) http://www.personal.u-net.com/~carnfort/Professionals/b02.htm cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
The Rack conjures up images having nothing to do with torture for me. (probably because I'm such a filthy animal) ;) On 7/10/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, what has happened to this thread? Ever since Henri wrote that it's heading in the right direction, it seems to be dead. Bad beer chitchat hangover? Summer break? Everyone busy watching soccer? Or were my last suggestions so far off that they don't even deserve a response? Just to get discussion starting again, here is yet another alternative name suggestion: The Rack in reminiscence of a 70s british TV series :-) http://www.personal.u-net.com/~carnfort/Professionals/b02.htm cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jesse Kuhnert Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Henri Yandell wrote: There's a security related one in front of the board this month, which has much of the same issues as the testing one so (I reckon) that'll be just as educational as pushing the current testing thoughts to the board. This resolution was passed, but it ended up just being the promotion of the XML Security subproject to TLP (as Santuario). XML's slowly breaking up as a TLP, so this was a natural continuation of that. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Very good thread that I think is heading in the right direction. My thinking is that it should continue for the next month and be put in front of the board then if it has reached a good state. There's a security related one in front of the board this month, which has much of the same issues as the testing one so (I reckon) that'll be just as educational as pushing the current testing thoughts to the board. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Hi Felipe, I fully agree with you. So, let's say we decide to promote Cactus+JMeter to a TLP of their own, but not the broad testing.apache.org; I have 3 questions: 1.What should it be named ? 2.What exactly do these 2 projects have in common so they can be grouped together? 3.Could the TLP accept more projects? What's the criteria? Here are my preliminary answers: 2.This is the crucial point and ca be the guide for 1 and 3. Consider the project originated from Jakarta, whose roots come from the Java in the server side, we could work on something related to Java EE Testing or Server-side Java Testing. Java + (focus on) server-side should also allow for the testing related artifacts from Struts and Tomcat mentioned as candidates: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-generalm=115047715227445w=2 I'm not sure whether server-side should be tied to J2EE though. Maybe the project description should state that it does not claim exclusiveness within it's scope, just to be sure. After all, it is still an effort to create a home for several related projects, and not an attempt to find a solution for a specific technical problem. 1.I'm too bad on naming (JCacter? MetrusJ? :-). Scrutiny? Ordeal? 3.My guess is that once 2 is answered, we would have a criteria for letting new projects be incorporated to the TLP. Roy Fielding on 6/22: A federation is simply an umbrella project with no significant responsibilities of its own -- all of its projects report directly to the board and simply view the federation as a communal thing. I think XML and Jakarta should already fall into that category. Starting one is just like starting a project, except that the purpose is limited to community/commons like things and not actual products. Please forgive my ignorance, but I didn't understand this conclusion: does it means we could have testing as a 'federation TLP'? Os does the federation concept would apply to the Cactus+JMeter project? The former, I guess. no significant responsibilities means that kind of project should not release code itself, the way I read it. cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Hi all, Felipe Leme wrote: 1.What should it be named ? 2.What exactly do these 2 projects have in common so they can be grouped together? 3.Could the TLP accept more projects? What's the criteria? I suggest we add runtime testing to the list of criteria. I guess it's one of those implicit assumptions we've been making, but it really should be pointed out. It reduces the scope by eliminating projects or products like: Gump - build time testing Clover - requires static code analysis to determine test coverage Quality Assurance stuff - something that runs statistics on issues opened or closed resulting from manually executing test cases Those are examples for things related to testing that are probably not meant to be in the scope of the currently discussed new project. If I am not mistaken, both Cactus and JMeter are executing test cases at runtime, collecting data without instrumentation of byte code or JVM plugins. By restricting the scope to this kind of testing stuff, we should be able to alleviate some concerns about over-broadness. cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 6/20/06, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 6/16/06, Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip/ I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it... snap/ Thanks for putting it all together as a summary, I've put the closing statements from that email, verbatim, on a wiki page [1]. Its open to edits (I might make some minor edits myself in a day or two). This is good. Here are a few additional things that we might want to think about adding, assuming all are OK with these commitments. snip/ This (below) is generally in line with my expectations of how things should work, and aligned to what we've said previously in these threads, IMO. Ideally, there'd be a mechanism to get some feedback, even in your absence (thanks for volunteering though). -Rahul This list is designed to address some of the concerns that have been raised in the past about umbrella projects. Obviously, not all may agree with the points below, and even with these provisions, the board may not approve the Testing proposal. I just thought it would be a good idea to get these ideas out for discussion for this and the other umbrella-like things that we may be splitting Jakarta into. 1. The PMC members named in the proposal are signing up to provide oversight for the *entire project*, not just subprojects that they participate in. In fact, there are formally no subprojects, just products or code bases that are versioned / released separately. I would recommend that we avoid the use of the term project other than for the TLP itself and avoid subproject altogether. 2. As new components are incorporated, the PMC will grow and will always include the (the majority of) active committers working on each of the components. Ability to make decisions on behalf of the whole project will be considered when granting commit access. 3. A necessary condition for adoption of a codebase or creation of a new component will be commitment from a minimum of 3 PMC members (possibly existing ASF committers, joining with the codebase) agreeing to review / apply patches, review commits, serve as RM, etc. for the new component. 4. If one or more of the components, or the entire project, grows in complexity or community size this number intentionally left blank to the point where effective oversight / active involvement by the Testing PMC on all components is no longer possible, the project will be split (just as Jakarta is being split now, per this proposal). Note that this is a statement of intent, not an administrative mandate (i.e., the somewhat painful, consensus-driven process that we are following now in Jakarta is our *intention* to improve and maintain). 5. Inactive components, or components without a sufficient number of active PMC members, will be regularly archived. One more personal thing: I just learned that the board meeting has been postponed until next Tuesday. Unfortunately, I will not able to attend that day. Therefore, it would be great if one of the other members supporting this proposal could step up to attend. Phil With his permission, I am forwarding an excerpt from a recent post from Roy Fielding, in response to questions about a proposed Security TLP originating out of the XML project. The concerns he raises below all pretty much apply directly to Testing. Could be the right approach here is to limit it to Cactus + Jmeter, or even have them each TLP separtately. I think the key is really point 1. above as well as Roy's argument below about not claiming dominion over a topical area. Roy Fielding on 6/22: When a project owns a category, such as security, the participants think that they are responsible for all Apache products in that space. Meanwhile, what they are actually working on is a fairly small project that addresses the specific requirements of a given set of users, such as xml-security. People don't try to make products that are applicable to every possible consumer in a given category, and volunteers cannot oversee projects in which they do not actually participate. What is left is either a single project that rejects all new target audiences or an umbrella project that creates an artificial barrier to oversight. There is no way to broaden the perspective of a project -- people simply don't wake up one day and discover a need to be aware of everyone else's work in similar projects, and most people don't have the bandwidth to do so anyway. That is why each project has to be self-governed. When someone else comes along and says an obvious thing like XML is inherently non-secure, I want to work on a security project that demonstrates a better way of securing blah,
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Hi Phil, On 6/23/06, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With his permission, I am forwarding an excerpt from a recent post from Roy Fielding, in response to questions about a proposed Security TLP originating out of the XML project. The concerns he raises below all pretty much apply directly to Testing. That post pretty much explain the umbrella issue; it would be nice to have it somewhere on Apache's site, so it can be used in other situations. Could be the right approach here is to limit it to Cactus + Jmeter, or even have them each TLP separtately. That was Hen's original idea, but it faded away as these projects didn't feel confident enough to have a TLP of their own (for instance, I'm pretty much the only active Cactus committer right now, and not that active; JMeter is being more active commmitter-wide, but they were not willing to be TLPed alone). OTOH, we had drawn the attention of more people - many of them current Jakarta PMC members, like Rahul, Dion and Yoav - once we pushed the testing TLP, so maybe the JMeter+Cactus TLP could be doable now, although it still requires some decisions/definitions (see below). I think the key is really point 1. above as well as Roy's argument below about not claiming dominion over a topical area. Ok, I agree. So, let's say we decide to promote Cactus+JMeter to a TLP of their own, but not the broad testing.apache.org; I have 3 questions: 1.What should it be named ? 2.What exactly do these 2 projects have in common so they can be grouped together? 3.Could the TLP accept more projects? What's the criteria? Here are my preliminary answers: 2.This is the crucial point and ca be the guide for 1 and 3. Consider the project originated from Jakarta, whose roots come from the Java in the server side, we could work on something related to Java EE Testing or Server-side Java Testing. 1.I'm too bad on naming (JCacter? MetrusJ? :-). 3.My guess is that once 2 is answered, we would have a criteria for letting new projects be incorporated to the TLP. Roy Fielding on 6/22: A federation is simply an umbrella project with no significant responsibilities of its own -- all of its projects report directly to the board and simply view the federation as a communal thing. I think XML and Jakarta should already fall into that category. Starting one is just like starting a project, except that the purpose is limited to community/commons like things and not actual products. Please forgive my ignorance, but I didn't understand this conclusion: does it means we could have testing as a 'federation TLP'? Os does the federation concept would apply to the Cactus+JMeter project? []s, -- Felipe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 6/16/06, Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip/ I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it... snap/ Thanks for putting it all together as a summary, I've put the closing statements from that email, verbatim, on a wiki page [1]. Its open to edits (I might make some minor edits myself in a day or two). This is good. Here are a few additional things that we might want to think about adding, assuming all are OK with these commitments. This list is designed to address some of the concerns that have been raised in the past about umbrella projects. Obviously, not all may agree with the points below, and even with these provisions, the board may not approve the Testing proposal. I just thought it would be a good idea to get these ideas out for discussion for this and the other umbrella-like things that we may be splitting Jakarta into. 1. The PMC members named in the proposal are signing up to provide oversight for the *entire project*, not just subprojects that they participate in. In fact, there are formally no subprojects, just products or code bases that are versioned / released separately. I would recommend that we avoid the use of the term project other than for the TLP itself and avoid subproject altogether. 2. As new components are incorporated, the PMC will grow and will always include the (the majority of) active committers working on each of the components. Ability to make decisions on behalf of the whole project will be considered when granting commit access. 3. A necessary condition for adoption of a codebase or creation of a new component will be commitment from a minimum of 3 PMC members (possibly existing ASF committers, joining with the codebase) agreeing to review / apply patches, review commits, serve as RM, etc. for the new component. 4. If one or more of the components, or the entire project, grows in complexity or community size this number intentionally left blank to the point where effective oversight / active involvement by the Testing PMC on all components is no longer possible, the project will be split (just as Jakarta is being split now, per this proposal). Note that this is a statement of intent, not an administrative mandate (i.e., the somewhat painful, consensus-driven process that we are following now in Jakarta is our *intention* to improve and maintain). 5. Inactive components, or components without a sufficient number of active PMC members, will be regularly archived. One more personal thing: I just learned that the board meeting has been postponed until next Tuesday. Unfortunately, I will not able to attend that day. Therefore, it would be great if one of the other members supporting this proposal could step up to attend. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
On 6/20/06, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 6/16/06, Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip/ I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it... snap/ Thanks for putting it all together as a summary, I've put the closing statements from that email, verbatim, on a wiki page [1]. Its open to edits (I might make some minor edits myself in a day or two). This is good. Here are a few additional things that we might want to think about adding, assuming all are OK with these commitments. snip/ This (below) is generally in line with my expectations of how things should work, and aligned to what we've said previously in these threads, IMO. Ideally, there'd be a mechanism to get some feedback, even in your absence (thanks for volunteering though). -Rahul This list is designed to address some of the concerns that have been raised in the past about umbrella projects. Obviously, not all may agree with the points below, and even with these provisions, the board may not approve the Testing proposal. I just thought it would be a good idea to get these ideas out for discussion for this and the other umbrella-like things that we may be splitting Jakarta into. 1. The PMC members named in the proposal are signing up to provide oversight for the *entire project*, not just subprojects that they participate in. In fact, there are formally no subprojects, just products or code bases that are versioned / released separately. I would recommend that we avoid the use of the term project other than for the TLP itself and avoid subproject altogether. 2. As new components are incorporated, the PMC will grow and will always include the (the majority of) active committers working on each of the components. Ability to make decisions on behalf of the whole project will be considered when granting commit access. 3. A necessary condition for adoption of a codebase or creation of a new component will be commitment from a minimum of 3 PMC members (possibly existing ASF committers, joining with the codebase) agreeing to review / apply patches, review commits, serve as RM, etc. for the new component. 4. If one or more of the components, or the entire project, grows in complexity or community size this number intentionally left blank to the point where effective oversight / active involvement by the Testing PMC on all components is no longer possible, the project will be split (just as Jakarta is being split now, per this proposal). Note that this is a statement of intent, not an administrative mandate (i.e., the somewhat painful, consensus-driven process that we are following now in Jakarta is our *intention* to improve and maintain). 5. Inactive components, or components without a sufficient number of active PMC members, will be regularly archived. One more personal thing: I just learned that the board meeting has been postponed until next Tuesday. Unfortunately, I will not able to attend that day. Therefore, it would be great if one of the other members supporting this proposal could step up to attend. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org, take 2
On 6/16/06, Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip/ I think these statements are a good start for the next meeting's proposal - could someone write an wiki entry for it (or even update the current resolution)? I'm traveling until Sunday and my internet connection is pretty bad here, so it would be hard for me to do it... snap/ Thanks for putting it all together as a summary, I've put the closing statements from that email, verbatim, on a wiki page [1]. Its open to edits (I might make some minor edits myself in a day or two). -Rahul [1] http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPCactusAndJMeter/Notes []s, -- Felipe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
testing.apache.org, take 2
Hi all, Sorry for being quiet so far regarding this issue, but I've been too busy with other real-life subjects (besides, it's World Cup time :-). Anyway, I've read all messages and will try to write a 'condensed' reply of all pertinent issues, plus a couple of statements summarizing them. As such, it's going to be a long email - so, if you don't have the patience to read all replies (I wouldn't :-), jump straight to the end... On Jun 6, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the formation of this project. I second Rahul's comment here. In fact, the proposal started as an effort from Hen to emancipate some projects (Cactus and JMeter) out of Jakarta, but there are many other projects interested to join the new TLP (I will talk more about those projects later). Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active developers (amongst other things). This is another good point: one motivation for the TLP is to bring momentum back to some dormant projects (like Cactus). I'm aware this motivation could be dangerous (we could, for instance, end up with a dormant TLP, which is worse than a dormant sub-project), but I'm still confident it's worth a try. Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with regards to this proposal. Ok, that makes sense: such mitigating factors should be on our proposal for the next meeting (I will bring them back after the replies). On Jun 6, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: It's more in our court to come up with something to convince them I think. Ok, let's try to come out with concrete arguments for the next meeting. Mostly I think we need to detail the cross-ASF interest in the idea. Otherwise Jakarta Test Ok again, let's do that. So far, I can list the following: - Struts developed some testing artifacts also used by MyFaces - WebWork - which has 'merged' into Struts - seems to have some testing stuff which could be migrated to the TLP - Cactus is (I believed) used by other JavaEE related projects (like Geromino and Struts) - we (Rahul and I) have been contacted in private by committers of other ASF projects (like Tomcat and Struts) willing to donate some code to the new TLP - as mentioned in previous messages, there are many other examples of testing artifacts spread across ASF projects that could be migrated into the new TLP. Of course, each case should be analyzed in particular, as not all of then might be suitable for the TLP, but the point is that we have a 'market' for the TLP. On Jun 9, 2006, at 2:50 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is I think the problem is the fear that the TLP, as an umbrella project, grows up in an unorganized way and becomes more of a problem than a solution. and what mitigating steps may be possible. One such step is to have well defined rules on how an existing project would be accepted in the TLP. For instance, the proponent should 'prove' that the new project would aggregate value to the TLP, either technically and/or by bringing 'development momentum'. Another step (related with the previous one) is to define the incubation/sandbox mechanism for such new projects in a way a little bit more rigid than the regular incubation process. In particular, I would very much appreciate a definition of umbrella that allows Geronimo, Logging, Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow disallows Testing. As others have already pointed out (sorry again for the delay on the reply :-), that definition is not a consensus. Anyway, I think Geronimo and Struts could be risked off the umbrella moniker, as they are focused in a concrete product and not on a generic concept (like the others). Besides, Jakarta Commons - which is the most 'problematic' umbrella, as it's very broad - is not an TLP, but a Jakarta sub-project (well, that's another issue...). On Jun 9, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Jesse Kuhnert wrote: It makes sense that people want to be careful about a tl subdomain. Some of the projects you mentioned are fairly staple diets to a good majority of development projects. (ie struts/logging/xml/commons/etc) . Yes, that's sort of what I meant previously (sorry for the redundancy). Maybe we (ASF) need a formal definition of what makes a TLP: for instance, it could be either a major project with some minor sub-projects (like Struts, Tomcat, Geronimo, Maven, Tapestry, etc..) or the (in) famous 'umbrella' (like Jakarta, DB, XML, Logging, Commons and hopefully Testing). In other words, we would be treating the umbrellas as 'first-class TLPs', and not some sort of 'failed experiments' (please note that I'm not affirming the aforementioned projects are failures, much the opposite. It's just a lack of a better expression :-( What would go into testing.apache.org? I'm all for it as testing
Re: testing.apache.org
On 6/11/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:50 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: Rahul Akolkar wrote: snip/ Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those comments yet? I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much appreciate a definition of umbrella that allows Geronimo, Logging, Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow disallows Testing. (this is the way i see the world and so is likely biased) the ASF runs on sub-minimal rules. most votes are subjective and not objective. the criteria applied are personal and evolve over time. past decisions are not revised to take account of changing opinions. snap/ Thanks for that input Robert, seems in line with what I had anticipated -- nice and fuzzy on an objective level. The thing that is clear, however, is that this is membership driven (as it should be too, IMO) so I'll pretty much step aside at this point and return to my seat as a casual (yet keenly interested) observer. -Rahul there is no rule against umbrella projects and so no single consensus definition is needed. their is quite a diversity of opinions on umbrella nature amongst the members. (i won't give my opinions on umbrella nature now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the membership and may be misleading.) the board is elected by the members and so reflects the opinions of the membership. there is a strong consensus that umbrella-ness is a warning sign. just as there isn't a single objective definition, there is no one definitive reason why members believe this. (again, i won't give my opinions now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the membership and so may be misleading.) recently (for various reasons) there has been a definite hardening of attitudes. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 14:24 -0400, Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 6/11/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:50 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: Rahul Akolkar wrote: snip/ Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those comments yet? I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much appreciate a definition of umbrella that allows Geronimo, Logging, Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow disallows Testing. (this is the way i see the world and so is likely biased) the ASF runs on sub-minimal rules. most votes are subjective and not objective. the criteria applied are personal and evolve over time. past decisions are not revised to take account of changing opinions. snap/ Thanks for that input Robert, seems in line with what I had anticipated -- nice and fuzzy on an objective level. you know me too well :) often fuzziness indicates that the issues haven't really been completely settled as yet The thing that is clear, however, is that this is membership driven (as it should be too, IMO) so I'll pretty much step aside at this point and return to my seat as a casual (yet keenly interested) observer. we don't have the answers. we may not even know the questions. but we do have confidence in our ability to learn and evolve. that's one reason why the ASF chooses to grow policy and why policy changes over time. it's important that every consensus is challenged. once any consensus opinion of the membership is accepted as true just because it is received from that group, ossification and group speak sets in. evolution and growth stops. these are the real threats to apache. we need to people to ask 'why?' (so please don't stop) coming back to henri's comments: the ASF prefers self-organisation. reorganisations are much more likely to be approved if it's the committers involved who are pushing for them. if the communities are effected are strongly in favour then this has great weight. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org
It makes sense that people want to be careful about a tl subdomain. Some of the projects you mentioned are fairly staple diets to a good majority of development projects. (ie struts/logging/xml/commons/etc) . What would go into testing.apache.org? I'm all for it as testing in general has to be good thing and there is potential for all sorts of shared support if it is made easy to contribute into and collaborate on...Esp in the web based items world. At the same time, if it's not substantial looking enough it could ~potentially~ be viewed as a negative thing. On 6/9/06, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip/ So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit (although this one will take more time due to the licenses incompatibility). snap/ Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active developers (amongst other things). Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those comments yet? I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much appreciate a definition of umbrella that allows Geronimo, Logging, Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow disallows Testing. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jesse Kuhnert Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: testing.apache.org
On 6/6/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote: snip/ Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those comments yet? It's more in our court to come up with something to convince them I think. I asked them a couple of times for a bit more in the way of info to bring back, but didn't get a reply (by memory from the meeting wasn't very good - it lasted 2.5 hrs). snap/ I actually think of this as a two-step process: Step 0: Convince you (Hen, the messenger, seem a bit tentative at this point?). Step 1: Convince them. The umbrella concern is genuine, IMO. The legend may possibly (pure speculation) have also grown due to the fact that we said we won't discriminate based on programming language. To me, the crux of Felipe's answer to that question was the bit about an existing community and developers willing to consistently (as consistent as you can be on your own time) invest time into the project. I think we have said that any codebase (beyond the seed set) that comes into Testing will have to have: a) A developer base willing to invest energies b) Existing community (for any that get incubated in -- ofcourse, that will be overseen by the Incubator as well) c) Binding support that will look for (a) and (b), amongst other things Do we agree on this? Any other comments? Beyond that, IMO, it comes to having the board understand that we are as discerning of the umbrella concern as they are. And that the benefits seem to outweigh this concern. Mostly I think we need to detail the cross-ASF interest in the idea. snap/ Until now, we have seen interest from folks who are participants in Jakarta, Tomcat and Tapestry (and possibly more, I didn't consult any resource to check where all of the participants' interests lie). And I suspect that is only because we haven't talked much about Testing outside Jakarta (AFAIK). Towards the feedback in the initial email in this thread then, IMO, this doesn't feel artificial (perhaps we need some more clarification what that meant in the first place). -Rahul Otherwise Jakarta Test Components it is ;) [joke] Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org
On 6/9/06, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul Akolkar wrote: snip/ Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those comments yet? I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much appreciate a definition of umbrella that allows Geronimo, Logging, Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow disallows Testing. snap/ While it may make sense to say something along those lines in a larger context, I do not believe this can be part of any central argument towards the cause. If we're going to stand, we are going to do it on the basis of the merit of our proposal and the community support for it, rather than some sort of comparative analysis. The easy way out of your concern above may be to simply say that the board has now changed its mind about the existence of potential umbrella projects based on the lessons learnt in the meantime (Hen actually alludes to that in his email) -- for me atleast, that would probably be an acceptable answer to the question posed. -Rahul Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org
You may want to pull in someone from the webwork/struts (I don't know what
it's called right now) project. Specifically - Patrick Lightbody is pretty
active in the area of testing so getting him to dump in thoughts might help.
You also have ibm and what they are doing in atf-dev @ eclipse. Not a
completely related project, but the java xpcom bindings hint at all manner
of good full-browser based web testing. (there's also
http://jrex.mozdev.org/, but I've not tried it.) I know a couple of the devs
there have expressed definite interest in anything related to
javascript/web/XHR unit testing solutions. (Javier Pedemonte/Adam Peller @
ibm )
On 6/9/06, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It makes sense that people want to be careful about a tl subdomain. Some
of
the projects you mentioned are fairly staple diets to a good majority of
development projects. (ie struts/logging/xml/commons/etc) .
What would go into testing.apache.org?
snip/
Elements of the seed set (see Felipe's prior email) and over time,
other codebases with active developer support. Ofcourse, this is the
all important question, so all input is welcome, both on what should
go in and what shouldn't.
I'm all for it as testing in general
has to be good thing and there is potential for all sorts of shared
support
if it is made easy to contribute into and collaborate on...Esp in the
web
based items world.
At the same time, if it's not substantial looking enough it could
~potentially~ be viewed as a negative thing.
snap/
Not sure what you mean, but IIUC, probably not as high a concern,
since if jmeter.apache.org is substantial looking (see Hen's initial
email in this thread), then surely { jmeter , cactus , foo } is
substantial looking to me.
-Rahul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: testing.apache.org
Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip/ So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit (although this one will take more time due to the licenses incompatibility). snap/ Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active developers (amongst other things). Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those comments yet? I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much appreciate a definition of umbrella that allows Geronimo, Logging, Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow disallows Testing. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
testing.apache.org
Should have sent this a week or two ago. The proposed resolution for a testing.apache.org was tabled until next month (ie: June 21st) because the board were concerned about yet another umbrella - with this one feeling too artificial. They made the point that size of TLP is not a concern - jmeter.apache.org would not be a problem - though I know that the JMeter guys weren't very into the idea. The conversation was more on JMeter than Cactus. I was listening in, but didn't do a very good job of selling the testing.apache idea. I don't have any great ideas for how to take things further. The idea was formed around db.apache/logging.apache style umbrellas that at one point were the solution to language centric umbrellas - seems that the focus is clearly on single projects now. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org
I hope I'm not butting in in the middle of a known conversation, but was testing.apache.org generally supposed to hold any sort of shared libraries for testing? If so I've got some things I could donate right away, like a dojo test ant task / others. On 6/6/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should have sent this a week or two ago. The proposed resolution for a testing.apache.org was tabled until next month (ie: June 21st) because the board were concerned about yet another umbrella - with this one feeling too artificial. They made the point that size of TLP is not a concern - jmeter.apache.org would not be a problem - though I know that the JMeter guys weren't very into the idea. The conversation was more on JMeter than Cactus. I was listening in, but didn't do a very good job of selling the testing.apache idea. I don't have any great ideas for how to take things further. The idea was formed around db.apache/logging.apache style umbrellas that at one point were the solution to language centric umbrellas - seems that the focus is clearly on single projects now. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jesse Kuhnert Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: testing.apache.org
Hi Jesse, Initially, the idea was to provide Java-related testing projects. Not that we were against a language-agnostic project - we just didn't think about that. After the proposal, someone raised the questions if we would accepts contributions from other languages and we said it would be fine. So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit (although this one will take more time due to the licenses incompatibility). -- Felipe Jesse Kuhnert wrote: I hope I'm not butting in in the middle of a known conversation, but was testing.apache.org generally supposed to hold any sort of shared libraries for testing? If so I've got some things I could donate right away, like a dojo test ant task / others. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org
On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip/ So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit (although this one will take more time due to the licenses incompatibility). snap/ Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active developers (amongst other things). Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those comments yet? -Rahul -- Felipe snip/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing.apache.org
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip/ So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit (although this one will take more time due to the licenses incompatibility). snap/ Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active developers (amongst other things). Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those comments yet? It's more in our court to come up with something to convince them I think. I asked them a couple of times for a bit more in the way of info to bring back, but didn't get a reply (by memory from the meeting wasn't very good - it lasted 2.5 hrs). Mostly I think we need to detail the cross-ASF interest in the idea. Otherwise Jakarta Test Components it is ;) [joke] Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT] Jakarta Cactus/JMeter - testing.apache.org
[x] +1 I am favorable to the move and would like to contribute to the new TLP [ ] +1 I am favorable to the move but would not be participating in the new TLP [ ] +0 it does not matter to me [ ] -1 I am against it because peter
