:49 pm
To: dev@river.apache.org <dev@river.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
I look at git in terms of the ease of use for branch/merge patterns and the
support of pull requests for code review and historical change tracking.
It is really far sup
I look at git in terms of the ease of use for branch/merge patterns and the
support of pull requests for code review and historical change tracking.
It is really far superior in its flexibility. Even just the diff facility
if a big step forward.
I do agree that projects benefit significantly
.
Include original message
Original message
From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Sent: 06/07/2016 08:36:37 pm
To: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
Are we changing the minimum supported Java version for user code? If so,
we definitel
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
, 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 - languages othe
I just hope a move to git does not become yet another reason to delay a
release. A few months ago we were really close - just a matter of fixing
a qa build failure.
On 7/5/2016 11:44 PM, Peter wrote:
Thanks Brian,
Hang in there, I think we can get back on track without fragmenting,
I've seen
On 05-07-16 14:51, Bryan Thompson wrote:
GitHub (at least) provides excellent tracking. It is a matter of how you
define policy for PRs. We do not accept PRs unless the author is a
contributor with appropriate CLAs for the project. So it works out very
nicely for us. Every single commit and
Thanks Brian,
Hang in there, I think we can get back on track without fragmenting,
I've seen the developers on this project work well together in the
past. I do agree GitHub is less work for releases, I'm going to attempt
to get access to Apache's git wip repository. My experience has been
Thanks Patricia, I can follow up with infra.
Regards,
Peter.
Sent from my Samsung device.
Include original message
Original message
From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Sent: 05/07/2016 07:12:20 pm
To: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages othe
+1 for Bryan’s PR/GitHub email. I don’t see any way we couldn’t attribute any
code change to some user with a CLA active at any given time.
I don’t think the attic represents defeat, I’m reluctant to let it go to the
attic but right now it seems that more work is being done on the ASF
GitHub (at least) provides excellent tracking. It is a matter of how you
define policy for PRs. We do not accept PRs unless the author is a
contributor with appropriate CLAs for the project. So it works out very
nicely for us. Every single commit and its authorship remains visible and
that
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
Can we move to git, without moving to GitHub?
https://www.linux.com/blog/apache-hadoop-transitions-git
A concern I have with moving to GitHub is DCMA take down notices and IP:
https://github.com/github/dmca
The Apache foundation provides us with legal support as well as governance.
I always
See https://attic.apache.org/ for an introduction.
The question I am raising is whether River is viable as an Apache
project, not whether it is a valuable body of code. Your second
paragraph is exactly my point.
Apache brings some good stuff to its projects in the form of licensing
with
I am just not that familiar with Apache policy. However, river is a real,
functional, deployed in use platform. I certainly agree that there is
deadlock at this point in terms of the people and process. However, I am
not sure that an attic is the right place for a well grounded and fielded
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
