I can probably get you a contact from the Eclipse folks who run the Eclipse Plugin Central site, if you need/want any ideas, or answers to questions.On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactivefor a while, but during that
Plugins is becoming such a general term now days, I think the only real way to distinguish the overlap is through education and good documentation, not by renaming the technologies which I think would add further confusion.On Aug 24, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:As for your second point
I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on
Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is
important then I'm definitely game. All of the software currently
used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP,
MySQL, SimpleForum, and
Dain, One additional aspect I just thought of is that the Geronimo
team might decide to someday create a plugin repository that is
equivalent to geronimoplugins.com at the location you mentioned
(geronimo.apache.org/plugins) for hosting plugins that are developed
by/for the Apache projects.
Paul McMahan wrote:
I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on
Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is
important then I'm definitely game. All of the software currently
used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP,
MySQL,
On 8/25/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use
geronimo.apache.org/plugins?
I don't think it's a requirement to run on ASF hardware, but a natural
solution - the closer the better.
All in all, your proposal is the best I've
Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a
plugin repository
This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind
the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster
communication between plugin users.
I do have some general curiosity questions like What happens if a
plugin exists on multiple sites? and What does it take to
Strike my comment about IE. It looks like I had set my viewing font to
larger. Doing this made some of the text on the initial page really
large (such that it wrapped and the bottom of the chars on the first
line were touching the top of the chars on the second line). It also
messed up
Hi Joe,
what are the problems you see with IE?
I mainly use Firefox but so far I can't tell the difference for what I
tested with IE. Can you send me a link?
Cheers!
Hernan
Joe Bohn wrote:
This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind
the creation of plugins (and
On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.
On 8/24/06, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind
the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster
communication between plugin users.
I do have some general curiosity questions like What happens if a
plugin exists
I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking at it right the site Paul is
proposing is a clearing house for all plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to
any number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully be the first of many). At
Hey Bruce, Glad you asked these questions. I have not had any
offline discussions with Aaron about geronimoplugins.com. My
intention was to have any conversation here on the dev list in context
of where the discussion left off before. My gmail reader threads the
whole discussion together for
On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking
at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all
plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to any
number of other plugin sites
There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It
also provides a rating system, news page, and
+1 great idea Paul.
Paul McMahan wrote:
There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It
Forwarding request to infra@ list.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jun 19, 2006 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of
a Release Manager)
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
There's an interesting plugin site
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
the default option.
I think Hiram does too, he
+1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work. (We'll need some help
from the infra folks :)
David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
default option.
I
I can help with infra stuff. Please loop me in when you need it.
thanks,
dims
On 6/15/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work. (We'll need some help
from the infra folks :)
David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by
default at some Apache machines by default?
That would mean a) someone would need to set up and maintain
that, and (more importantly) b) the default location
-0, i do not see the need of maintaining two different sites for plugins,unless no one will ever want a plugin with non ASL compatible dependencies.As soon as the geronimoplugins.org
site is administered by the geronimo community,I do not see any needs to host it at Apache. This site has no brand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hiram Chirino wrote:
On 6/12/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Also, who has accused who of intimidation and how?
I responded:
People who feel intimidated don't speak up about it until/unless
they feel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I agree with Jeff that 'whining' is an inappropriate typification
of what has been happening here -- particularly since the discussion
has been fed by specific requests.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am
On 6/15/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work. (We'll need some help
from the infra folks :)
Um, I'm afraid I need to clarify my position. If the Geronimo
community thinks it would be best to create and maintain an Apache
site and
David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
default option.
I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His
thoughts are clear though.
On Jun 14,
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you
ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an
alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and
put together a site. At that point we have have an open
I started this thread and at this point I think it has outlived its usefulness.
Aaron, I for one would like to say that my frustration that started the monster was fueled by about
3 hours sleep and the right combination of responses on the thread. I can't say the frustrations
weren't real as
Sure. I especially look forward to the constructive feedback from
users. I have some thoughts to add to that thread that came from a
user at one of our recent talks.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/14/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started this thread and at this point I think it has
I agree with this - we'll fix the default in the next rev. There have
been some good ideas (including mine, I think) and we'll see how they
work in code.
geir
David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private
+1
David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
default option.
I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts
are clear though.
On
+1
david jencks
On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:11 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
the default option.
I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.
David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
default option.
I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His
thoughts are clear though.
On Jun 14,
I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either?
On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at
Hi Ken,
On 6/12/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Also, who has accused who of intimidation and how?
I responded:
People who feel intimidated don't speak up about it until/unless they
feel comfortable. It's not for me to reveal their information; they
can
Hiram Chirino wrote:
I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either?
I think Matt was trying to make a point.
I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
here. That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
what we are doing
Hi Jeff,
All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by
default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi Jeff,
All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by
default at some Apache machines by
On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jeff,
All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by
default at
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
default option. To give you and the list some insight into why I am
concerned and care, here is an e-mail I sent in response to a private
e-mail from Aaron after I started the Questions about
www.geronimoplugins.com site
On 6/14/06, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
default option. To give you and the list some insight into why I am
concerned and care, here is an e-mail I sent in response to a private
e-mail from Aaron after I started the
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
the default option.
I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His
thoughts are clear though.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM,
I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you
ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an
alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down
and put together a site. At that point we have have an open
discussion on the
On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:11 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
the default option.
I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His
thoughts
+1
On 6/14/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you
ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an
alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down
and put together a site. At
On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi Jeff,
All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
Now the default link issue is something else. Can
On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sure. I hope we can get into a mode of giving folks the benefit of
the doubt and if they screw up they I flame them good!
lol... geez.. I always hit send way too quick!
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
On 6/14/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you
ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an
alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down
and put together a site. At that
Funnily enough, GMail had this to offer at the top of my mail window:
The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing. - Walt Disney
(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltdisney131640.html)
:)
- Brett
On 15/06/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/14/06, Dain
On 6/14/06, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Funnily enough, GMail had this to offer at the top of my mail window:
The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing. - Walt Disney
(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltdisney131640.html)
:)
Actually I saw that Web Clip
+1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you
ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an
alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and
put together a site. At that point we have have an
I had to re-read that one a couple of times :)
Hiram Chirino wrote:
On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sure. I hope we can get into a mode of giving folks the benefit of
the doubt and if they screw up they I flame them good!
lol... geez.. I always hit send way too quick!
Openness indeed.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs
one
Which project? Geronimo? The plugins effort?
and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue). I've offered
a number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site,
and
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Dims,
Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful
message.
Perhaps -- and evidently -- not useful to you, but it appears
that others have caught on.
(Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago? I don't know --
you have made the first
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Aaron,
I like the schedule below. From a 1.1 perspective I think we made
several mistakes. We were optimistic about our time, we were unclear
about the content, we disrupted development for many while only a few
did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Aaron,
I like the schedule below. From a 1.1 perspective I think we made
several mistakes. We were optimistic about our time, we were unclear
about the content, we disrupted development for many while only a few
did the lion's share of the
Aaron,
I like the schedule below. From a 1.1 perspective I think we made several mistakes. We were
optimistic about our time, we were unclear about the content, we disrupted development for many
while only a few did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has off for the rework).
On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can
claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And
it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
working toward are.
I agree with
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can
claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And
it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
working
In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
on 'thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo'.
As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
etc.) caused a ton of problems, in
Aaron Mulder wrote:
In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
on 'thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo'.
Personally, I would rather we not get into details as I do not want to
see this thread degrade into a flame-fest. I would much rather that we
can
A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
any kind of regular
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I would rather we not get into details as I do not want to
see this thread degrade into a flame-fest. I would much rather that we
can all agree that there is a communication problem, and definitely
enough of a communication problem,
Aaron,
A flame-fest is counter productive...I prefer we keep this professional.
If folks want to see the issues, the mail lists are available for
people to read over the last several weeks and make their own opinion.
There is more than enough information there to clearly show there are
concerns
I think SuSE-like would be a good idea too.
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:34:39
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
Aaron,
Since you asked. First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that you have sent a private
e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on this thread. I think
that will help.
Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is
.
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:34:39
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
on 'thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo
On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron,
Since you asked. First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that
you have sent a private
e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on
this thread. I think
that will help.
Sure.
Second,
Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned
as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which,
On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
I'm not sure what this means. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
I have entered my own comments below...
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron,
Since you asked. First, Can you respond below if you will allow
anyone that you have sent a private
e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other
On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned
I just saw this thread and want to say my 2c, I haven't yet read the
other threads and have to run out so sorry if this statement has been
repeated. The most important thing we can do to make the project
succeed is to ship, and to ship often. Moving forward we need to
have a fixed
Aaron,
Sure. I assumed for a bit that the RTC [1] and PMC Changes [2]
instituted by our pmc chair had sent a strong signal and wrongfully
thought that had its desired effect, which is to help improve
collaboration and make sure there are no exclusionary walls w.r.t
participating in Geronimo
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me. This has
nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue. The point
here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
clearly a fairly large decision that
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me. This has
nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue. The point
here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
clearly a
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com. But
out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea,
and then yes, as your friend, and
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com. But
out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea,
and then
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com. But
out of basic respect, opening up
Comment below...
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
integration, re-package it, and place it on
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going
to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
explaining the work he was doing on the code?
On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going
to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
So you would have preferred that he send an email to the
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going
to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
explaining the work
Okay, after reading the e-mails thus far ( I haven't read through all of them yet ) here are my
responses inline.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron,
Since you asked. First, Can you respond below if you will allow
anyone that you have sent a private
On Jun 8, 2006, at 5:44 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I propose for 1.2 we drive it more by time than by features. That is,
we lay out a schedule including builds every 2-3 weeks, initially
milestone builds, becoming beta and RC builds. We try to get people
to test and provide feedback on the
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
getting together to talk about Geronimo. So
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me. This has
nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue. The point
here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
clearly a fairly
Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one. Let's be
consistent in our interpretations.
Jeff Genender wrote:
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender
Bruce,
If you are again asking for my input here it isIt's plain and
simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much
as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space
constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby
one can give
Dims,
Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful
message. (Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago? I don't
know -- you have made the first announcement of this just today.
What's the message?) You in your e-mail right here have said what you
though went wrong and
On 6/9/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds good. Can you put together a time table representation of
this idea? It would help me understand the nuances.
Hypothentically speaking, here's a 3.5-month schedule for 1.2:
June 12: 1.1 released
- select release manager for 1.2
-
Alan,
Forwarding to dev with your permission. Let's just bring all issues
into the open and use this opportunity to vent, clear our heads and
hopefully help put our best foot forward from now on.
thanks,
dims
On 6/9/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a private email so that
3.5 months for the planned cycle seems a bit two long especially when
you think it would be reasonable to bump it for something important.
I personally would like to see 2 months planned, so if it runs long
we are closer to 3 months instead of 4.
-dain
On Jun 9, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Aaron
Great email from Alan. Alan, feel free to share these feelings with the
group. I am inspired that you have similar thoughts as many of us (not
that I ever even questioned that ;-) ].
Thanks.
Jeff
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Alan,
Forwarding to dev with your permission. Let's just bring all
Please see below:
On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan,
Forwarding to dev with your permission. Let's just bring all issues
into the open and use this opportunity to vent, clear our heads and
hopefully help put our best foot forward from now on.
thanks,
dims
On 6/9/06,
Aaron,
The info was available publicly more than a week ago (If one know what
to look for..):
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=411036
I presume that the expectation of the board and the pmc chair is for
us to figure out things for ourselves. If we expect someone to lay
down the
Boy, you _are_ a little frustrated.
I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can
claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And
it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
working toward are.
I propose for 1.2 we drive it
98 matches
Mail list logo
