Re: Time to retire from Apache

> On Feb 23, 2021, at 15:51, Bryan Thompson wrote: > >  > > At this point I know precisely nothing other than the fact that they have > decided that someone violated the code of conduct. >> >> What actually happened was a decision to remove an individual from a PMC. Much of the board’s

Re: Board feedback - Request discuss attic for River

The board tends to be more concerned about an active community than technical matters. We need to discuss whether there is a pool of potential contributors who are likely to become active. On 5/20/2020 5:51 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: Hello River Folk, I've received feedback from the Board

Re: Draft Report River - May 2020

+1, and thanks for getting on to this early. On 5/7/2020 12:31 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote: Hello River Folk, Please review the May report draft below.   With work starting to slow down, I should have some time to complete the modular build soon. How are you being impacted by Covid-19?

Re: February Board Report Draft

+1 On 2/26/2020 10:26 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: I didn't make the February deadline, so I'll post the report in time for March. +1 Peter. Please vote at your convenience. Regards, Peter. On 2/20/2020 6:29 AM, Dan Rollo wrote: Looks good to me. +1 Dan Rollo From: Peter Firmstone

Re: November Board Report Draft

+1 On 11/8/2019 3:47 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: Hello River folk, please review / comment / suggest / changes for the draft board report for November below. Regards, Peter. ## Description:  - Apache River provides a platform for dynamic discovery and lookup     search of network services. 

Re: August Board Report - Draft

+1 Patricia On 8/9/2019 4:51 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: Hello River folk, please review / comment / suggest / changes for the draft board report for August below. Regards, Peter. ## Description:  - Apache River provides a platform for dynamic discovery and lookup     search of network

Re: River Board Report

+1 Patricia On 6/5/2019 2:04 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: Hello River folk, please review / comment / suggest / changes for the draft board report for June below. Regards, Peter. ## Description:  - Apache River provides a platform for dynamic discovery and lookup     search of network

Re: Draft February Board report.

+1 On 2/20/2018 3:00 PM, Dan Rollo wrote: +1 Subject: Draft February Board report. Date: February 17, 2018 at 5:44:29 AM EST To: "" Hi River folks, Draft board report for February, I'm running a little late, so this might have to be postponed

Change of Chair

The board today unanimously passed the resolution accepting my resignation as River PMC Chair, and appointing Peter Firmstone to replace me. Peter: Congratulations/commiseration, and thanks for volunteering. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

Change of Chair

I have been PMC chair for 3 years, and have become much less involved in River during that time. Accordingly, I think it is time for a new chair. I am posting this to dev@ to get the widest possible range of volunteers. I plan to resign effective at the September board meeting, so there will

Re: [Report] Apache River - Draft

Thanks for taking care of that, and simplifying a busy month for me. On 5/7/2017 5:35 PM, Peter wrote: +1 Peter. I've uploaded the report. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message Original message From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> Sent: 06/05/2017 10:40

Re: [Report] Apache River - Draft

+1 On 5/5/2017 12:55 AM, Peter wrote: Hi River folks, Draft board report for May, please make suggestions, remember this is only my point of view, if yours differs please say so. It's probably a bit wordy, so could use improvement, but I want to be honest with the board about the current

Re: [Report] Apache River - Draft

Thanks, Bryan On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: My first impression is too much technical detail. Also we had a request from a board member last month "It would be helpful if you could expand a little (a couple of sentences is fine) on the dis

Re: [Report] Apache River - Draft

My first impression is too much technical detail. Also we had a request from a board member last month "It would be helpful if you could expand a little (a couple of sentences is fine) on the discussions for future directions in your next report.". That needs to be easily identifiable in the

Re: OSGi NP Complete Was: OSGi - deserialization remote invocation strategy

m but I am not sure if this is what you are asking about. Thanks, Michal Patricia Shanahan wrote: Are you literally claiming NP Completeness, or just using that as an analogy for really, really difficult?

Re: OSGi NP Complete Was: OSGi - deserialization remote invocation strategy

Are you literally claiming NP Completeness, or just using that as an analogy for really, really difficult? On 2/11/2017 1:23 PM, Michał Kłeczek wrote: I am sorry but I think that to solve various issues we need to make sure fundamentals are right: 1. There is NO such a thing as "reflective

Re: Draft of February 2017 report

+1 Active PMC members: Please approve or comment. On 2/4/2017 9:35 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: ## Description: - Apache River software provides a standards-compliant JINI service. ## Issues: - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time. ## Activity: - Continued

Fwd: Fwd: IoT at the ASF -- ApacheCon and Project DOAPs [was: Does your project play in the IoT space?]

Does River have/need a position on the general Apache IoT push? Forwarded Message Subject: Fwd: IoT at the ASF -- ApacheCon and Project DOAPs [was: Does your project play in the IoT space?] Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 14:31:31 -0600 From: Trevor Grant

Draft of February 2017 report

## Description: - Apache River software provides a standards-compliant JINI service. ## Issues: - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time. ## Activity: - Continued discussion of River's future direction, this quarter mainly on OSGi and serialization. - Zsolt Kúti

Re: [jira] [Commented] (RIVER-447) Leaked Executor Service Threads in LoadClass

Looks like a good way of checking it out. I'm in favor of committing to trunk. On 1/19/2017 7:26 PM, Peter wrote: Thanks Shawn & Dan for reviewing, I'm happy to commit that to trunk now using lazy concensus. Pat, do you feel about this as a user review process? Regards, Peter. Sent from

Re: Summary of my external work

te: Which changes (a subset) would you consider voting for in an Apache Release? Is it possible more of these features could be integrated over time? Regards, Peter. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message Original message ---- From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>

Re: Summary of my external work

How do you envisage the future of this work? Personally, given the volume of changes outside svn, without any review or commit messages, I am not sure I would vote for an Apache release based on this code. Do you have a quorum of PMC members who do feel comfortable with this process? On

Access for new committer

Zsolt Kúti is now in the River committer group. Do I need to do anything else to grant access to the SVN repository? If so, what?

Re: River revamp

sumer's perspective, a nasty vendor lock-in, that all vendors are pushing for and all consumers/users need to fight the best we can. A very active home automation project is called "OpenHAB", a flurry of activity, connecting just about everything from your thermostat to your

Re: River revamp

uot;OpenHAB", a flurry of activity, connecting just about everything from your thermostat to your dog's toys. I have not looked closely at it, don't even know if it is a Java project as such, but it is one of the most active projects in the field of Home IoT. Cheers Niclas On Wed,

Re: Draft Board Report

+1 On 11/6/2016 2:14 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: ## Description: - Apache River software provides a standards-compliant JINI service. ## Issues: - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time. ## Activity: - Wrapped up River-3.0.0, released this quarter. - Continued

Draft Board Report

## Description: - Apache River software provides a standards-compliant JINI service. ## Issues: - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time. ## Activity: - Wrapped up River-3.0.0, released this quarter. - Continued discussion of River's future direction. ## Health

Re: Future of River

a little about what people want for River going forward. Regards, Peter. On 7/10/2016 5:08 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: This message is to change the subject line. These comments are far too important to be mistaken for being part of wrapping up the 3.0 release. On 10/6/2016 10:57 PM, Peter wrote

Re: Fwd: [jira] [Updated] (INFRA-12432) Apache River migration from SVN to Git - Git commit access

I may have missed something, but I didn't see a proposal for dealing with the comment: "This will be complicated and time consuming as the svn repo doesn't fit the usual trunk/branches/tags format. You may want to do some consolidation or break this down into multiple git repos, for example,

Re: Fwd: Call For Papers - Deadline: Oct 10; Int'l Conf on Internet of Things (CSCI-ISOT: Dec 15-17, 2016, Las Vegas); Publisher: IEEE CPS

support for ipv6 multicast. Should we be planning to write a paper for the symposium next year? Regards, Peter. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message Original message From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> Sent: 21/09/2016 12:31:36 pm To: dev@river.apache.org S

Fwd: Call For Papers - Deadline: Oct 10; Int'l Conf on Internet of Things (CSCI-ISOT: Dec 15-17, 2016, Las Vegas); Publisher: IEEE CPS

Any thoughts on writing papers about River and IoT? I don't think we are quite there yet, but it is something to keep in mind. Forwarded Message Subject: Call For Papers - Deadline: Oct 10; Int'l Conf on Internet of Things (CSCI-ISOT: Dec 15-17, 2016, Las Vegas); Publisher:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache River 3.0.0

+1 Binding. On 9/2/2016 6:18 PM, Peter wrote: River 3.0.0 is the latest release of Apache River. The release artifacts and signatures for the release candidate are available at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/river/ [ ] +1: I vote in favour of this release. [ ] +0: I am not against

Re: QA test failure River 3.0

& regards, Peter. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message Original message From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> Sent: 18/09/2016 08:47:43 am To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: QA test failure River 3.0 Is this an actual problem with River 3.0, or just an indicati

QA test failure River 3.0

Is this an actual problem with River 3.0, or just an indication that my Linux box is not tough enough for this stress test? [java] Running org/apache/river/test/impl/outrigger/matching/StressTestInterleavedWithShutdown.td [java] Time is Sat Sep 17 12:36:29 PDT 2016 [java]

Testing 3.0

What is the best/latest set of instructions for running the River QA tests?

Re: release artifacts

Thanks. I'll go ahead with my own build and test. On 9/4/2016 6:27 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: I can do this. Bryan On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: My reason for asking this is to make sure there are at least three of us. If Peter and I both

Re: release artifacts

My reason for asking this is to make sure there are at least three of us. If Peter and I both build and test the release, it won't be enough to make it an official Apache release. We will need a third PMC member who is active enough to do it. On 9/1/2016 6:31 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: How

Re: release artifacts

How many PMC members are ready and willing to build and test, so that they can upvote the release? Peter: Why jar files in the release? Isn't it supposed to be source code? On 9/1/2016 4:57 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote: Getting another set of release artifacts 4 River3 ready and have run all

Re: JDK9 permission checks leaking outside of module boundaries

Do these grants create a security risk? On 8/21/2016 3:18 AM, Peter wrote: There are a number of permission checks leaking outside module boundaries, because their classes call jvm library code that eventually cause these permission checks. Is this correct? I've had to grant the following

Re: Phoenix RMI Registry and jdk9

To what extent is it feasible to move away from depending on com.sun.* classes in general? On 8/16/2016 1:46 AM, Peter wrote: Phoenix specific JRMP Exporters for Activation and Registry don't play well with jdk9 as they access sun.* classes. Only the Registry exporter is required, to allow

Testing Apache River with JDK 9 Early Access builds

I have received a request from Oracle's OpenJDK Quality Group for information on any testing with have done with JDK 9 early access builds. Has any testing been done? Is that a reasonable project going forward?

Re: Draft report

+1 On 8/7/2016 12:09 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: Also, PMC members: please vote as soon as possible. I am a bit late sending this because it is due to the board on Wednesday. Patricia On Aug 6, 2016, at 12:59, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: Here is a draft of the Augus

Re: Draft report

Also, PMC members: please vote as soon as possible. I am a bit late sending this because it is due to the board on Wednesday. Patricia > On Aug 6, 2016, at 12:59, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > Here is a draft of the August 2016 board report. As always, su

Draft report

Here is a draft of the August 2016 board report. As always, suggested changes are welcome. == ## Description: - Apache River software provides a standards-compliant JINI service. ## Issues: - There are no issues

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: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java

with agreed versioning, but it would avoid a lot of updates to JIRA. Regards, Peter. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message Original message From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> Sent: 06/07/2016 06:59:14 pm To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - lan

Interns?

Bishnu Gautam has suggested that we should start taking interns, with assigned mentors, and might be able to steer some students our way. What do you think? Would the proposed projects be able to use students? To be fair to the students, they would need mentors they could learn from, not just

Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java

help to break things loose? Open up the development and release process more? Right now things are hung up in part on Apache process. Maybe Apache is just not the right place at this time for this technology? Thanks, Bryan On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patricia Shanahan<p...@acm.org> wrot

Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java

On 7/5/2016 1:26 AM, Peter wrote: Can we move to git, without moving to GitHub? Not currently. There is an experiment underway for a system that uses GitHub with an Apache-controlled mirror. I will look again at the status of that project. We can get a read-only git mirror. See

Re: Lotj - languages other than java

On 7/4/2016 8:33 PM, Bishnu Gautam wrote: Hi Peter It is great that you pointed out lookup locator issue in firewall and its potential solution. It would be great to see the developments in River in which they really focus to have lookup discovery beyond the firewall without requiring port

Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java

a move to github would help to break things loose? Open up the development and release process more? Right now things are hung up in part on Apache process. Maybe Apache is just not the right place at this time for this technology? Thanks, Bryan On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patricia

Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java

I think it is time to raise on the user list moving River to the attic. There is no sign of progress on a release. What interest there is in development seems to be going in different directions. Using portions of River code in other projects would still be feasible with it in the attic, but

Re: Draft report

+1 On 5/9/2016 7:59 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: This is a draft for the May 2016 board report. == ## Description: - Apache River software provides a standards-compliant JINI service. ## Issues: - As discussed under

Draft report

This is a draft for the May 2016 board report. == ## Description: - Apache River software provides a standards-compliant JINI service. ## Issues: - As discussed under "Health report", the project does have issues to deal

Re: State of the project

might not get much utility from this). * Git repositories can be easily forked (a read-only view would support this), and these forks can flow updates back to the original project (this would again run into trouble with the Apache CLA process). Thanks, Bryan On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Patricia

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

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.

Re: River 3.0 API changes

My initial feeling is in favor of reverting - if we have test failures, we should investigate whether the bug is in River or in the test. If it is in the test, fix the test. I have been trying to think whether there is a simple way of finding and reviewing suspect tests. Presumably a test

Re: [DISCUSS] [vote] should we fix security flaws?

device. Include original message Original message From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> Sent: 08/04/2016 11:15:44 pm To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [vote] should we fix security flaws? I am curious not so much about why a vote as about why a vote at this part

[DISCUSS] [vote] should we fix security flaws?

I am not prepared to vote on this. First of all, I would need, on a private list where we can go into details of security issues, to get a feeling for the seriousness of the flaws in question. A denial of service is, in many contexts, less serious than file corruption. We may want to

Re: The future thing

having with the board. I can create another release artifact in the near future, I need to look into how to create binary artifacts and stage the maven artifacts. Regards, Peter. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message Original message From: Patricia Shanahan &l

Re: Build without doing any tests?

Sorry, wrong mailing list. Patricia > On Mar 13, 2016, at 07:57, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > I am currently building a debug version of AOO, including using > --enable-dbgutil. I lost a few hours overnight because it did a test that > triggered an asserti

Build without doing any tests?

I am currently building a debug version of AOO, including using --enable-dbgutil. I lost a few hours overnight because it did a test that triggered an assertion dialog, and waited for me to wake up and click "No" to continue. I would prefer to separate building and the tests that are normally

Re: Reminder: [Vote] Release Apache River JTSK 3.0.0

le package probably works just fine. And the licensing is fine. So we could probably just go ahead and release it. I’m not sure what to do. Any opinions? Cheers, Greg Trasuk. On Mar 3, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: The file wk1 in the attached zip is the

Re: Reminder: [Vote] Release Apache River JTSK 3.0.0

, and it was fine. Cheers, Greg Trasuk On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: Tried that. I even went back and re-extracted the .zip file, in case prior attempts had left tire marks. After the extract I did ant ant qa.run and got the same errors. This is on

Re: Reminder: [Vote] Release Apache River JTSK 3.0.0

evice. Include original message Original message From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> Sent: 03/03/2016 09:44:57 am To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder: [Vote] Release Apache River JTSK 3.0.0 I have built from the release artifacts, on a Ubuntu box. What is the simplest

Re: Reminder: [Vote] Release Apache River JTSK 3.0.0

I have built from the release artifacts, on a Ubuntu box. What is the simplest way of running some tests against my build result? On 3/2/2016 2:25 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: I have just got done with another project that was my highest priority for a couple of weeks. I'll attempt to build

Re: The future thing

Thanks for getting this started. I think you have a high level vision of where you see River going in the future. It might be useful to state it here. The costs and benefits of changes are best evaluated in that sort of context. On 2/25/2016 3:52 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote: While we're

Where to start?

I expect to complete my "Building on Windows" project in the next day or so, by documenting the results in https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7 That means it is time to pick another project. Any suggestions? Here is a brief resume:

Re: Where to start?

Apologies for sending this to the wrong list. I think the best thing I can do right now for River is to be a technically-neutral moderator for the River futures discussion. On 2/11/2016 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: I expect to complete my "Building on Windows" project in th

Re: Where to start?

, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: I expect to complete my "Building on Windows" project in the next day or so, by documenting the results in https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7 That means it is time

Re: Draft report

Can I report this as a "+1"? On 2/3/2016 9:29 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote: Works for me. Greg Trasuk On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:44 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: Here is a draft of the February report. Please review and suggest any corrections, additions etc. In

Re: Draft report

lists. I prefer that to arbitrary reformatting just to make it look different. On 2/4/2016 1:15 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote: Didn’t realize we were voting. +1 Greg Trasuk On Feb 4, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: Can I report this as a "+1"? On 2/3/20

Draft report

Here is a draft of the February report. Please review and suggest any corrections, additions etc. In particular, does the "Health report" section represent the general consensus? = ## Description: Apache River software

Board report

February is a board report month for River, and the board meeting is relatively early in the month, so I should submit our report by February 10th. Are there any particular points I should be making? Patricia

Re: Does it really make sense to have a "Convenience Binary" artifact?

On 1/21/2016 3:24 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote: On 21-01-16 09:51, Greg Trasuk wrote: In going through the exercise of cleaning up the release artifacts, I’ve started to wonder if it actually makes sense to publish a “binary distribution” of the JTSK separately from publishing the artifacts

Re: Release vote procedure

and release it? Cheers, Greg. On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: Now that we have a release candidate (YEAH!), we need to sort out how and when to vote on it. We have two proposals, copied from different e-mails. Peter Firmstone: Voting on this r

Re: River - 3.0.0 Release candidate

These are the sorts of issues that I think should be sorted out, on a consensus basis, during a preliminary review-and-test phase. On 1/9/2016 12:16 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote: - I also though we had agreed to take the ‘examples’ folder out of the JTSK. Cheers, Greg On Jan 9, 2016, at 3:05 PM,

Re: VOTE: Take Security seriously or my resignation.

Please, please cancel this. We do need to have a serious discussion of River future direction. I expect that discussion to take a lot longer than a week, and hope it will involve as many users and potential users of River as possible. For example, we may need to canvas other project mailing

Re: committer keys for release

I do not currently have keys, and this is not a good time to try to get a key into the web of trust. My understanding is that keys from people other than the release manager are optional. On 12/21/2015 7:29 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: Committers who have contributed to River, please append

How to test?

I got myself a Ubuntu system set up, and was able to build River on it relatively easily, compared to Windows. Now I need to run the tests. What is the latest/best documentation on how to do so?

Re: Preparation for Release - one more volunteer needed

eter wrote: Yes, check them in, I'll test them, the integration tests are running again now, so we'll quickly identify any problems. Peter. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message Original message ---- From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> Sent: 10/12/2015 12:

Preparation for Release

This is probably unnecessary, but I wanted to make sure everyone understands the requirements for casting binding votes in favor of a release. See http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy In particular "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all signed source

Re: RAT reports

message From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> Sent: 06/12/2015 12:59:41 pm To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: RAT reports RAT is still Java - it is just packaged as a .bin.zip. I was not able to run the script directly in Cygwin, but was able to get the reports by pasting the guts of it into

Re: Trunk merge and thread pools

Although we don't have a formal release schedule, I think there is general agreement that getting 3.0 out in the field is way, way past due. It should be considered frozen except for fixing really critical bugs in the current functionality. Even livable bugs should be documented and put off to

Re: Trunk merge and thread pools

If you have a real world workload that shows contention, we could make serious progress on performance improvement - after 3.0 ships. I am not even disagreeing with changes that are only shown to make the tests more effective - after 3.0 ships. I am unsure about whether Peter is tilting at

Re: Trunk merge and thread pools

variable and run the script. That would be very helpful. Thanks, Peter. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message Original message From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> Sent: 05/12/2015 12:01:04 pm To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: Trunk merge and thread

Re: Trunk merge and thread pools

Thanks for getting that done. There is a more general message in your thread pool observation. Any time we do something a certain way for performance, we should be prepared for the possibility that the opposite choice will become better in the future. In general, there has been a trend for

Re: svn commit: r1716613

I think part of the problem is that it is difficult to understand and reason about the Java memory model, because it is designed to be implemented on many different hardware memory models. On 11/29/2015 1:16 AM, Gregg Wonderly wrote: I’ve tried to stress, over the years, how many different

Draft report

## Description: Apache River software provides a standards-compilant JINI service. ## Issues: - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time ## Activity: - We have added a new PMC Member and Committer, Bryan Thompson. - A new, more usable, set of examples was released in

November is board report month

I am due to file a River report for the November board meeting. Does anyone have anything I should include? Activity on the release seems to have stopped - what should I say about it? Thanks, Patricia

Re: Release 3.0 merge into trunk

to git? That might be easier. Thanks, Bryan On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: I think the next thing we need to do to make Release 3.0 a reality is to merge it into the trunk. If you agree, I would like opinions on the best way to go about it. Ideal

Re: Release 3.0 merge into trunk

bikeshedding. Cheers, Greg Trasuk On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: For moving to Git, see http://www.apache.org/dev/writable-git Is the support provided sufficient? How do committers in general feel about moving River to Git? If it is a good idea, should

Re: Compatibility

It may be worth thinking about the process for moving a network to 3.0. Is there a practical strategy other than simultaneous update of the entire network? On 9/10/2015 9:55 AM, Dennis Reedy wrote: I’m not sure this is about release notes. You seem quite keen on getting 3.0 out the door, while

Re: Compatibility

On 9/10/2015 4:37 PM, Peter wrote: ... Now that the project has decided the only api is net.jini.* it would seem appropriate to move the org.apache.river.api packages into org.apache.river. ... Have we decided that? In general principle, in order to move forward, we need somewhere to add API

Re: Compatibility

If reflection does turn out to be too slow, could we catch java.lang.NoSuchMethodError? On 9/10/2015 6:34 PM, Peter wrote: The change was made for River-336. Can we refactor the Proxy's to use reflection, first discover if the the method exists, if not revert to

Re: Don't let Jini Standards become an impediment to development

Peter, It is absolutely essential to do this in 3.0, rather than e.g. in 3.1? I propose freezing 3.0 except for fixing significant regressions and integrating custard-apple, so we can get it out the door. Patricia On 9/9/2015 4:04 PM, Peter wrote: In order to enable defensive copying of

Re: Questions about the Reference Collection dependencies. Was: Re: Release 3.0

this communication in error, please notify the sender by reply email and permanently delete all copies of the email and its contents and attachments. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Patricia Shanahan<p...@acm.org> wrote: Although Peter has indicated approval, from a licensing point of view it

Re: River Musings

On 8/31/2015 4:07 PM, Bryan Thompson wrote: ... Why use net.jini.* rather than net.river.*? Do mean "net.river" rather than "org.apache.river"? We have domain names jini.net and river.apache.org, and can base package names on either of those. If we want to use anything else, we would need

Re: River Musings

On 8/31/2015 4:07 PM, Bryan Thompson wrote: ... Apologies if I am behind the curve here. It would probably be easier for me to understand if the package namespace cleanup was proposed as a list of X => Y renames so I could look at the source tree and understand more clearly what is involved.

  1   2   3   >