Chris,
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> I was talking with Greg, and I think I'm OK with org.apacheextras as
> the namespace.
Thanks for your patience :-) I wasn't trying to discount your
proposals, and I appreciate that you'd created a patch--I w
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Dec 29, 2011 7:16 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hey Mike,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I get the analogy. More comments below.
>
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> >
On 29 December 2011 20:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> If you are saying this is compatible with ALv2 ? Then why use Apache
>>> Extras instead of just the oodt SVN official repo in Apache ?
>>
>> But that's exactly the point! It is NOT AL
On 29 December 2011 20:50, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> they include runtime dependencies (via Maven2) on LGPL code.
> Basically I like the apacheextras idea, but it _must_ be made clear > that
> apacheextras has it's own rules which are _not_ ASF business.
> The current http://apacheextras.org is rea
On 30 December 2011 08:21, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> I'm also of the mindset that the PMC should be the ones saying
...
>> if they are OK with my oodt-pushpull-plugins Extras name and
>> to me it should be fine if the PMC is
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 29 December 2011 20:50, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> they include runtime dependencies (via Maven2) on LGPL code.
>> Basically I like the apacheextras idea, but it _must_ be made clear > that
>> apacheextras has it's own rules which are _not_
I did try, before sending the below mail, with the the accounts I have:
rgard...@opendirective.com
rgard...@apache.org
ross.gard...@gmail.com
I don't see any admin options.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Dec 30, 2011 3:11 PM, "Luciano Resende" wrote:
> On Fri
On 29 December 2011 20:23, Mark Struberg wrote:
...
> Would it be possible to have it under the package org.apacheextras ?
That's a good suggestion. We'd need to check with trademarks (cc'd) but
personally I think this would be OK.
CONTEXT for trademarks: a PMC wants to put some code on apache
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I did try, before sending the below mail, with the the accounts I have:
>
> Ross DOT gardler AT gmail.com
>
> I don't see any admin options.
>
Using your gmail account mentioned above, go to the following link
http://code.google.com/a/apache
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I did try, before sending the below mail, with the the accounts I have:
>
> rgard...@opendirective.com
> rgard...@apache.org
> ross.gard...@gmail.com
>
> I don't see any admin options.
Hm you should have?
http://code.google.com/a/apache-extra
Hey Noirin,
On Dec 30, 2011, at 12:21 AM, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> Chris,
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>> I was talking with Greg, and I think I'm OK with org.apacheextras as
>> the namespace.
>
> Thanks for your patience :-) I wasn't
There are two aspects of this situation that I want to highlight:
First, there's a policy tension at the heart of the whole Apache
Extras concept that has me puzzled.
I could point to a raft of messages from board members expressing
extremely vehement views in opposition to 'circumventing license
Hey Ross,
On Dec 30, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> [...snip...]
> Nothing in that quote says "using Apache marks", furthermore later sections
> prohibit the use of or marks. Therefore it would be a loophole if those
> clauses were not there. The clauses in our terms need to be read in th
On Dec 30, 2011, at 3:11 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 29 December 2011 20:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
If you are saying this is compatible with ALv2 ? Then why use Apache
Extras instead of just the oodt SVN official repo in Ap
Hey Ross,
On Dec 30, 2011, at 3:21 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 30 December 2011 08:21, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> wrote:
>>> I'm also of the mindset that the PMC should be the ones saying
>
> ...
>
>>> if they are OK with my oodt-p
Benson,
You honed in on PRECISELY the 2 points I was trying to make.
Thanks for making them so succinctly. One thing I will comment
on explicitly (read below):
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> There are two aspects of this situation that I want to highlight:
>
> First, the
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Benson,
>
> You honed in on PRECISELY the 2 points I was trying to make.
> Thanks for making them so succinctly. One thing I will comment
> on explicitly (read below):
>
> On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>>
Hey Benson,
On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> So, this leaves me with two questions: could comdev write a less
> comprehensive set of verbs here within the existing board@ mandate?
> And is there any point to a discussion on board@ about the starting
> point of all this: comm
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Benson Margulies wrote:
Second, I wonder about the proposed governance and logic of this whole
'java package id rules' business. Here's a scenario: someone from
outside Apache fills out the form, creates a project, and *forks some
Apache project into it.* Bingo, 'org.apache.*
19 matches
Mail list logo
