From: Conor MacNeill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as
it's scope.
Hi Dion,
Your subject got my attention :-) Is there an Ant PMC issue here? We're
Nope, no ant pmc issue from me.
certainly open to
Noel Bergman writes:
I like the idea of a central repository. It would simplify the issue by
centralizing maintenance of jars and licenses. I just want to know how
it
is going to operate. A joint operation between Ant and Maven?
Infrastructure?
[I won't even get into the question of why
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:34, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:42PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noel Bergman writes:
I like the idea of a central repository. It would simplify the issue by
centralizing maintenance of jars and licenses. I just want to know how
it
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:34, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:42PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related
projects under a single PMC]
Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:28, Sam Ruby wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:34, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:42PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related
projects under a single PMC]
Read the
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:43, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon
resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to
something like those of Ant or Cocoon: The Maven Project will deal with
the Maven system. But again
Conor,
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Dion was refering to the
repository; rather he was commenting in response to my aside regarding Ant
and Maven:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:42PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noel Bergman writes:
I like the idea of a central repository. It
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jason,
[I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related
projects under a single PMC]
Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as
it's scope.
Bah. The Board can easily change the scope if
Jason,
I am the one who raised the issue about Ant and Maven. I have made the
observation before. Dion said that it was the Ant PMC that was in the way.
Greg Stein replied that the Ant charter could be changed if that was the
only issue. You jumped down Greg's throat about the Board taking
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 11:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jason,
I am the one who raised the issue about Ant and Maven. I have made the
observation before. Dion said that it was the Ant PMC that was in the way.
Greg Stein replied that the Ant charter could be changed if that was the
only issue.
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 11:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Since I am the one who asked why Ant and Maven aren't related projects under
a PMC, you might was well yell at me for having the temerity to ask a rather
obvious question. But for all of your railing this morning, you never
actually
From: Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I didn't ask about Gump, Centipede or Ruper. I asked about Ant and
Maven. Start there. And as far as I'm concerned, if Build Project X
sucks
(a logical antecedent for the sake of discussion), then an Ant/Maven PMC
could resolve that by
I must stay that I find this entire exchange bewildering.
I have provided infrastrure support for Maven and an occasional patch
here and there. When asked about either Maven becoming a top level
project or leaving the ASF entirely, I provided what I thought were
helpful answers.
I welcomed
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's
themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened
to project self direction/determination?
I am not sure where you've got that impression from; and I hope it is
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Because this is not what's happening. Sam is trying to force a
collalition because of some sense of Rightness. We would like to be
left alone and if a natural level of cooperation emerges in time so be
it. But it shouldn't be dictated from the start
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 12:19, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's
themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened
to project self direction/determination?
I am
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
If we compete head-on with Ant why is that a concern?
No and yes - in that order. Short term, propably not; long term - seems a
waste of resources; espcially if you are not competing exactly head to
head but slightly diverse into different areas. Which
It reminds me of a dutch expression for which I do not know the US
equivalent - such as the trust of the host is in his guests - for so
much can he trust his guests.
Actually just found Ill doers are ill deemers or better perhaps Evil
dooers are evil dreaders. Not sure if it is exactly
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Since I am the one who asked why Ant and Maven aren't related projects under
a PMC, you might was well yell at me for having the temerity to ask a rather
obvious question. But for all of your railing this morning, you never
actually answered the
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:46:16AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:34, Greg Stein wrote:
...
Bah. The Board can easily change the scope if there are better ways to
organize the software that we [the ASF] produce.
Existing charters shouldn't get in the way of What Is
Costin Manolache wrote:
I see no problem if Ant, Gump, Centipede cooperate on the jar repository -
and maven doesn't.
uhm, I would like to see all of the above and the rest of us cooperate
on this thing. The value
of everyone's work on setting up and maintaining such a repo decreases
rapidly
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:43:05AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
...
Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon
resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to
something like those of Ant or Cocoon: The Maven Project will deal with
the Maven
I think synergy is worth aiming for; reinventing the wheel (and mainting
it) in several places is propably not worth it in the long run.
That's my core philosophy of software development.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe,
Greg Stein wrote:
The Board exists to help projects in their work. We exist to protect the ASF
to ensure that it will continue to exist, to help projects. Our intent is to
let projects do whatever they feel is right and correct, subject to the
constraints of the operation of the ASF and to what we
Leo Simons wrote:
But OTOH, I don't feel like spending more energy arguing than it would
take to set up those
multiple repos.
Maybe this is a bikeshed and some one should just do it.
However I do feel the Apache Jar Repository is going to be a very
popular bike shed. So some planning is
okey, this ticked my bogometer.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
My comments cannot be misinterpreted.
an interesting position. :-)
My observations relate strictly to the behaviour of the board
in their relationship with Sam.
indeed: your observations. subjective opinion, in other words,
not the one
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 14:49, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
okey, this ticked my bogometer.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
My comments cannot be misinterpreted.
an interesting position. :-)
My observations relate strictly to the behaviour of the board
in their relationship with Sam.
To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be
given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the
Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern?
Well, I'm not entirely sure how wanting to be left alone fits into an
atmosphere of
I thought the whole reason that Ant, Avalon, Cocoon, James et al moved top
level (out of Jakarta) was to get rid of top level umbrella PMCs so that
each project has its own PMC.
James,
As I understand it, the ASF is flattening the hierarchy, but I see top-level
projects established around
All I'm getting out of these discussions is that we're
capable of having long winded foodfights about turf.
This is an important problem that needs to get solved.
I wish that I were not starting to see this in a similar vein.
With respect to the repository, and classpaths, I have proposed
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 15:52, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be
given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the
Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern?
Well, I'm not entirely sure how
On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 12:53 PM, James Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 15:52, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be
given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the
Maven developers want to be left entirely
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon
resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to
something like those of Ant or Cocoon: The Maven Project will deal with
the Maven system.
FYI, the ASF Board stated clearly that this
James,
Do we really need to have one big community? We've fostered a tight knit
community of maven developers, even if they are not so tight with other
parts of Apache.
No, I don't believe that we need to be all one community. There is
relatively little in common between, for example, Tomcat
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Do we really need to have one big community? We've fostered a tight knit
community of maven developers, even if they are not so tight with other
parts of Apache.
No, I don't believe that we need to be all one community. There is
relatively
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:01:06PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
As I understand it, the ASF is flattening the hierarchy, but I see top-level
projects established around synergistic semantic domains, not code bases.
There is a bit of tension between those two, but generally: yes. There is a
36 matches
Mail list logo
