Re: State of the Project

o: dev@river.apache.org Subject: State of the Project We are due to file a board report next month. Last cycle, I first  initiated an open-ended discussion of the state of the project. I  included a summary in the board report. The feedback from the board was  positive: > mt: Thanks for the frank a

State of the Project

We are due to file a board report next month. Last cycle, I first initiated an open-ended discussion of the state of the project. I included a summary in the board report. The feedback from the board was positive: mt: Thanks for the frank assessment of River's health. sc: +1 to mt: bad

Re: State of the project

In the longer term, my understanding is that the Infrastructure team is working on ways of using Git that are compatible with ASF's IP history requirements. They are running a small experiment with a couple of projects. I will continue to monitor board@ in the hope of adding Git read/write

Re: State of the project

There are several key reasons for moving to git, and a read-only repository would not support most of them: * Git makes it significantly easier to branch and merge when compared to SVN, CVS, etc. * Git pull requests encapsulate an opportunity for feedback on branches and easy diffs between

Re: State of the project

There's already a read-only Git mirror at https://github.com/apache/river/tree/trunk. Best, Jukka Zitting On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:48 AM Patricia Shanahan wrote: > Currently, I believe only read-only Git mirrors are supported for most > projects. See

Re: State of the project

Welcome back Tom, glad to have you on the team again. Sent from my Samsung device.     Include original message Original message From: Tom Hobbs <tvho...@googlemail.com> Sent: 03/05/2016 09:22:33 pm To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: State of the project > Could we

Re: State of the project

Currently, I believe only read-only Git mirrors are supported for most projects. See http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html. It looks as though the process for adding a mirror is fairly simple. Would that level of support be useful? There is an experiment going on to extend Git use. I suggest at

Re: State of the project

> Could we consider a service registrar that doesn't require code downloads? > Other language support? What might it look like? This is my particular itch right now. I’m happy to work on pulling reggie out as one of the first modules. And +1 for git. > On 3 May 2016, at 11:29, Peter

Re: State of the project

inal message From: Tom Hobbs <tvho...@googlemail.com> Sent: 03/05/2016 02:50:21 am To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: State of the project I’d sum it up by saying that the project is on life support - but it could pull  through. There’s still a release in the pipeline, which hopefully 

Re: State of the project

I’d sum it up by saying that the project is on life support - but it could pull through. There’s still a release in the pipeline, which hopefully we can get out pretty soon. From that point I think we should revisit carrying on as-is, introducing some radical breaking changes or the attic.

Re: State of the project

On 2/05/2016 8:59 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: The next River report to the board is due May 11th. I am supposed to keep the board informed of the state of the community. With that in mind, I would welcome input from anyone with an opinion on the matter. Well it's not looking too healthy,

State of the project

The next River report to the board is due May 11th. I am supposed to keep the board informed of the state of the community. With that in mind, I would welcome input from anyone with an opinion on the matter.