Serge Knystautas wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Key ASF individuals are joining these discussions, on weblogs and
various discussion forums. But the ASF as a whole is silent.
In lieu of forming a statement for the ASF as a whole, what about
organizing/encouraging/guiding people who want to
active
committers - IMO ASF membership
should be similar with PMC membership ( as admission criteria, etc ),
i.e. based on contributions/merit and
without all the superman stuff.
In other words - church ( or party ) and state should be separated :-)
Costin
At 12:03 PM 11/27/2003 -0800, Costin
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:32:08AM +0100, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
...
Best way of doing things? Writing a connector for the servlet container
using JNI that uses unix sockets, named pipes, or something which is
actually faster than the usual TCP socket
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Greg Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:42:12PM -0700, Costin Manolache wrote:
...
Dot net is actually doing almost the same mistake as java (AFAIK)- they
support other languages, but only syntactically ( like java does with the
languages that generate java
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:
Could you also upload the jars, in the binary directory ? It would
simplify
the life of those who want to automatically download dependencies.
gladly but first a couple of questions:
1. is this someone that we should now be doing for
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having a file encode project-artifact-version.type has been very useful
for us.
Yes, it's often different from what the project creates and distributes, but
I (and others)
have been bitten by
commons-logging.jar, struts.jar, junit.jar so many
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Seeing the interest it has raised, I tend to think think it's time to
get the act together and start working on it. I'd like to propose this
for incubation ASAP, so to not loose momentum.
...
Codebases or part of codebases that could convole
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Collaboration does happen, now. It's not a future waiting to happen.
Is there something that's not happening that specifically needs to be
looked at?
That's the irony. As far as I can see, most of the build processes could
converge around
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words - as long as maven decisions affect only maven - I don't
care. But if it affects other projects, and the repository certainly does
- then the PMCs of those projects or the apache community are the ones
that decide.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Few simple questions:
Should we use 2 different dirs for src and binary distribution ? Or
maybe 3 dirs ( src, bin, doc ) ?
Why duplicate the existing distributions? They're available, mirrored and
well understood.
+1
I was just
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- the ASF repository shall contain ASF jars, which don't
require oversight beyond the issuing PMC.
- the ASF repository should contain shared third party
jars for which the ASF has approved their use and
distribution.
- the ASF
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, 26 Feb 2003, Nick Chalko wrote:
So I am for
/projectname/[subproject]/[version]/file[-version].jar
That leo suggested.
I'm not sure that's what Leo suggested.
Having the version in both dir and jar seems a bit too much. The common
practice in many projects ( at least in jakarta )
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 Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Leo Simons wrote:
files in /dist/java-repository besides perhaps HEADER.html and
README.htmls...
Few simple questions:
Should we use 2 different dirs for src and binary distribution ? Or maybe
3 dirs ( src, bin, doc ) ?
Are milestone builds acceptable ? Should we get
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
all PMCs whose committers 'commit' to the repository should maintain
some oversight.
Infrastructure hasn't considered that a good model for the Wiki, and I don't
know that it would work any better for the repository. Someone needs to
take
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Sam Ruby wrote:
In two weeks, there is a board meeting. At that time, I would like to
be able to report that the contents of the Maven repository conforms to
the policies of the Apache Software Foundation.
Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM Public License
(the pre-Jakarta BSF, for example) and the MPL (Rhino). The following
public domain components are also approved: Antlr and Doug Lea's
concurrency package.
Licenses
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I don't get these GPL people who license their work as GPL, but don't
want the viral aspect...
I believe that they are trying to separate the licensing of the source code
vs. the binary. If you want to use their SOURCE, you have to keep the
Are we now going to have similar oversight over the mailing lists and
archives ? If someone posts a pointer to warez or porn on one of the lists
- are we going to have to remove it from archives ?
Sorry, but I fail to see the difference between wiki and the mailing
lists. Both are open to
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Henri Gomez wrote:
- Did there is a need for a weblog package installed at apache.org
where commiters could put notes about THEIR ASF related works ?
+1
I don't think it is a need - but it would be a good idea.
I know there are free or cheap hosting sites - but the
So far it seems Stefano ( who is not currently a very active tomcat
developer) is pissed off by the decisions made on tomcat-dev.
I don't see too many tomcat developers flaming each other.
IMHO most ( or all ) tomcat developers agree that both code bases
had some good and some bad parts. I also
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 07:25, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Here is what I would have liked to see happening in Tomcat:
What you would have liked is your problem. As I repeated quite a few
times and you don't seem to hear is that the decision about a release
is a majority vote and can't be vetoed -
In my personal opinion they are just redundant :-)
The rule that matter is that the community control the code and the name
- a majority vote in the community can decide ultimately what happens.
This is a particular case ( again IMO ) of the releases are majority
votes and can't be vetoed.
A
Can someone summarize what's wrong with the gump descriptor used by
all jakarta and xml projects ?
I understand we may need to add more stuff ( maybe using some ns: ),
but I don't quite understand why we need to change existing definitions.
Costin
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 14:08, John Keyes
I partially agree with Dirk's opinion. A very large PMC where people
don't feel a direct need to participate is wrong.
That's the reason I think 'active participants who volunteer for PMC'
is the right solution. If someone doesn't feel 'active' in jakarta or
doesn't have the time or wish to act
On a related issue - I think it would be very nice to include a link to
gmane news gateway. There are quite a few people using it ( I'm no
longer directly subscribed to any list ), and I think it should be at
least mentioned.
I don't know if a news server taking the feed for US distribution or
VOTE 1: would you like to make it possible for non-committers to read
this mail list thru a web archive?
[X] +1 yes, let's make it readable
[ ] 0 don't know/don't care
[ ] -1 no, let's keep it private
- o -
VOTE 2: would you like to make
28 matches
Mail list logo
