On Jan 16, 2008 2:14 PM, Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for being rude.
No offense taken.
Like all ASF projects, Apache Struts is modeled after the original
Apache HTTPD Group. In this sense, it is like a group in an operating
system. Everyone in the group has the same privil
On Jan 16, 2008 4:42 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why there's any hesitation to get the bylaws
> inline with reality,
There's no hesitation. Before acting, some of us just like to give
others a chance to express their own opinions.
-Ted.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 3:47 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
whoever they come from.
Well, I'm reading the bylaws right now:
Yeah and missing the wood for the trees.
No
On Jan 16, 2008 3:47 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
> > whoever they come from.
>
> Well, I'm reading the bylaws right now:
Yeah and missing the wood for the trees. Vetos need justifica
Ted,
I think you're mixing a vote on quality with a vote on support. A +1 should
mean only of those things. If you really want to find out who intends to
support the release, hold another vote on that. For me, when I give a +1,
it's to determine software quality -- not my involvement. My vote is n
One thing we could do is to use a section of the wiki (is the export for
distribution controlled by... top-level page, or...?) is to provide some info
about expected availability *when such information is available*.
For example, I know that for the next month that I'll be able to work a tiny
bit
2008/1/16, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As a group, we really suck at letting each other know
> that we won't be around for a while.
Ted,
we are not a group, we are a community. In a group there is a chief,
there is a plan, and so on. Most of us (me included) participate in
the spare time. Fo
Dave Newton wrote:
--- "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
Since everyone here is a volunteer, there's no way to enforce an
obligation, and the ASF guidelines remind us of this. A vote is an
opinion, not a commitment.
Didn't you effectively say the opposite just ye
Ted Husted wrote:
A release is not an action that requires consensus approval. It's a
majority action. Look farther down under "Release Plan" and "Release
Grade".
Ah your right! Ok, in that case:
"An action requiring majority approval must receive at least 3 binding
+1 votes and more +1 vote
On Jan 16, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 12:23 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it. Put simply,
I feel
that anyone officially made a member of a project team has accepted a
greater level of responsibilit
On Jan 16, 2008 5:10 PM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 12:23 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it. Put simply, I feel
> > that anyone officially made a member of a project team has accepted a
> > greater
On Jan 16, 2008 11:42 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That may be so in practice Ted, but the bylaws say differently:
>
> "An action requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding
> +1 votes and no binding vetos."
A release is not an action that requires consensus
--- "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
> > Since everyone here is a volunteer, there's no way to enforce an
> > obligation, and the ASF guidelines remind us of this. A vote is an
> > opinion, not a commitment.
>
> Didn't you effectively say the opposite just yesterd
Ted Husted wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 10:47 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(1) If as you say Niall "votes are votes", then that SHOULD mean that
non-binding voters can veto a release, but the bylaws say differently:
"3 binding +1 votes" and "no binding vetos" is the benchmark to wh
On Jan 16, 2008 10:47 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) If as you say Niall "votes are votes", then that SHOULD mean that
> non-binding voters can veto a release, but the bylaws say differently:
> "3 binding +1 votes" and "no binding vetos" is the benchmark to whether
> a actio
Ted, I am guilty as charged of going "heads down" for a while.
However, I am back for at least the next year. Though I won't be able
to participate in user and dev discussions due to time. I'm on the
lists, but not reading everything unless it stands out. If you want
my input, please holla at m
On Jan 16, 2008 12:23 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it. Put simply, I feel
> that anyone officially made a member of a project team has accepted a
> greater level of responsibility than someone in the larger user community.
A c
Niall Pemberton wrote:
For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
whoever they come from.
Well, I'm reading the bylaws right now:
http://struts.apache.org/dev/bylaws.html
...and a couple of things stand out to me:
(1) It is specifically stated that the act of voting ca
On Jan 16, 2008 6:28 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 16, 2008 6:24 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Martin Cooper wrote:
> > >> That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it.
> > >
> > > Of course you do. If you didn't, I'd think you'd gone on vac
On Jan 16, 2008 6:24 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> >> That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it.
> >
> > Of course you do. If you didn't, I'd think you'd gone on vacation or
> > something. ;-)
>
> :)
>
> > So you're saying that if a non-committe
- Original Message -
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
[snip]
In the same way that if I participate in a Microsoft beta
Martin Cooper wrote:
That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it.
Of course you do. If you didn't, I'd think you'd gone on vacation or
something. ;-)
:)
So you're saying that if a non-committer thinks a release looks OK, a +1
says just that and means nothing more,
Yes.
> whereas
Martin Cooper wrote:
So you're saying that if a non-committer thinks a release looks OK,
...
the appropriate thing to do would be to vote +0
I think that's a great idea -- I'm much more likely to feel comfortable
offering a vote as "just a community member" now that I realize "+0" (or
"-
On Jan 15, 2008 9:23 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 10:40 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't forget, I'm not a committer, I'm not an
> >> Apache member in any way, so me casting a non-binding +1 vote means
>
Martin Cooper wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 10:40 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't forget, I'm not a committer, I'm not an
Apache member in any way, so me casting a non-binding +1 vote means
squat other than "yeah, one extra set of eyes has looked at it and
thinks it looks good".
On Jan 14, 2008 10:40 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't forget, I'm not a committer, I'm not an
> Apache member in any way, so me casting a non-binding +1 vote means
> squat other than "yeah, one extra set of eyes has looked at it and
> thinks it looks good".
>
Oh, I don't
On Tue, January 15, 2008 1:09 pm, Dale Newfield wrote:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> my feeling is that until a project deprecates a release, then
>> no, there would be no expiration. Anyone who +1'd a release is implying
>> they are willing to support it until it's officially deprecated.
>
> Do w
On Jan 15, 2008 1:09 PM, Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> > my feeling is that until a project deprecates a release, then
> > no, there would be no expiration. Anyone who +1'd a release is implying
> > they are willing to support it until it's officially deprec
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
my feeling is that until a project deprecates a release, then
no, there would be no expiration. Anyone who +1'd a release is implying
they are willing to support it until it's officially deprecated.
Do we ever deprecate any releases except non-current patch-level ones?
On Tue, January 15, 2008 11:38 am, Dale Newfield wrote:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> Martin Cooper wrote:
>>> Should we declare Struts 1 dead? Do we have three PMC members who are
>>> still willing to support further releases of it?
>>
>> That's a loaded question... do we have even three *PEOPLE*
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Should we declare Struts 1 dead? Do we have three PMC members who are
still willing to support further releases of it?
That's a loaded question... do we have even three *PEOPLE* still willing
to support further releases of S1? :)
Does that mean
On Tue, January 15, 2008 4:59 am, Ted Husted wrote:
> As it happens, the only outstanding patch for Struts 1 is one of
> Frank's, [STR-3006], an IE7 edge case.
That's funny, I didn't even remember that one!
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-5
On Jan 15, 2008 1:40 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a loaded question... do we have even three *PEOPLE* still willing
> to support further releases of S1? :)
If a security flaw, or other important reason to do a new release
appeared, yes, I am sure that we do.
As it hap
Martin Cooper wrote:
No, "prohibited" would probably be too strong (PROBABLY)... And yes,
I'd agree that if you know there are dozens of committers ready to
provide support, that's a bit of a different story too. But can you
really say such a discussion usually takes place before a vote? Is th
On Jan 14, 2008 9:16 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> >>> However, a +1 vote is *not* an
> >>> assertion that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such
> support.
> >
> > Please try re-reading what I wrote. Unless, that is, you are saying that
> I
>
Martin Cooper wrote:
However, a +1 vote is *not* an
assertion that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support.
Please try re-reading what I wrote. Unless, that is, you are saying that I
should be *prohibited* from voting +1 on any release unless I am
*personally* committed to fixi
On Jan 14, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Roughley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
> >> we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1
On Jan 14, 2008 2:24 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, January 14, 2008 5:06 pm, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
> >> we like, but it
Martin Cooper wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
is saying that he or she intends to help support the release.
On Mon, January 14, 2008 5:06 pm, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
>> we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
>> is saying that he or she i
On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
> we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
> is saying that he or she intends to help support the release.
>
No, it's not. That is a
> "Just as long as they spell my name right"
Heh heh :)
--
James Mitchell
On Jan 14, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
OK, here it is, out of context ...
* http://www.jroller.com/TedHusted/entry/geek_glossary_asf
- Ted "Just as long as they spell my name right" Husted.
On Jan 14, 200
OK, here it is, out of context ...
* http://www.jroller.com/TedHusted/entry/geek_glossary_asf
- Ted "Just as long as they spell my name right" Husted.
On Jan 14, 2008 1:28 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
> >> Retrotranslat
Sutton wrote:
> A link to a "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria." page always shows a
> classy commentator :).
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Wes Wannemacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Developers List"
> Sent: Monda
A link to a "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria." page always shows a
classy commentator :).
- Original Message -
From: "Wes Wannemacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [S
Holy crap Frank!
http://www.wantii.com/wordpress/?p=20
You were right! That was quick ;-)
-Wes
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 13:28 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
> >> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
> >
> > It is fast, but the
t"
Cc: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter
On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
>> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
>
> It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
> question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
> freeloaders who just download the software, but volunt
I'd like to add a +1 to Ted's remarks.
The nightly builds (including j4 binaries) are done by a process that
I run from the Apache Struts zone box. I may very well be wrong, but
I was under the impression that those j4 binaries were for
convenience only and not part of the official distrib
On Jan 12, 2008 12:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/1/12, Tom Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having issues
> > with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not) then we're
> > obligated to assist that user
2008/1/12, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> --- Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2008/1/12, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Personally I'd vote for just translating everything
> > What do you mean by "everything"?
>
> I was thinking primarily of the plugins.
Ok they are alr
s and
improvements in a new depencancy release, neither of which appeals.
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Petrelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 January 2008 18:35
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
2008/1/12, Dave Newton <[EMAIL P
--- Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/1/12, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Personally I'd vote for just translating everything
> What do you mean by "everything"?
I was thinking primarily of the plugins.
d.
-
2008/1/12, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Personally I'd vote for just translating everything
What do you mean by "everything"?
XWork, with 2.1.1 version, distributes a jdk14 version too in Maven
repository, so it can be included easily in the distribution.
Do you mean translated dependencies?
ich would differ
in support for generics, and possibly in other areas.
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Petrelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 January 2008 17:25
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
2008/1/12, Tom Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/1/12, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Most (all?) the issues I've seen are related to not
> > including enough translated jars, which is pretty easy to fix.
>
> This reminds me a thing: should we add the XWork retrotranslated
> package to
2008/1/12, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Most (all?) the issues I've seen are related to not
> including enough translated jars, which is pretty easy to fix.
This reminds me a thing: should we add the XWork retrotranslated
package to the jdk14 distribution?
Antonio
-
--- Tom Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having issues
> with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not)
I haven't seen very many 1.4 support issues on the user list; I don't know
about XWork itself. Most (all?) the issues
2008/1/12, Tom Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having issues
> with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not) then we're
> obligated to assist that user.
Obligated? Come on we are all volunteers, we are not obliged to do
anything
I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having issues
with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not) then we're
obligated to assist that user. If we dropped the 1.4 stuff, maybe for
Struts 2.1, then we would no longer have that obligation. Long term I
think we will
2008/1/12, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'd vote for sticking with the current approach for 2.0 and then dropping
> the 1.4 support entirely for 2.1.
>
> It would cause confusion to change the existing convention of dependancy
> packaging, but for a the new minor release (2.1) we can finally fo
aying that Java 5 is a requirement and
redirect the effort currently spent on the J4 release into improving the
code code.
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Petrelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 January 2008 15:05
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JD
2008/1/11, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I'm leaning more and more to not shipping dependencies by
> default
Do you mean in the "lib" and "all" distributions too?
I don't know: if you don't put them in, you have not a working distribution.
IMO, if a developer downloads a distribution expect
Personally, I'm leaning more and more to not shipping dependencies by
default, so I'd prefer the 1.4 distro to not have them. Our download
sizes are way too big already.
Don
On 1/12/08, Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Currently in the JDK 1.4 distribution, that contains b
Hi all,
Currently in the JDK 1.4 distribution, that contains backported Struts
2 artifacts, all the dependencies are added, while in release builds
only the backported artifacts (along with Retrotranslator runtime
libraries) are included.
What are your feelings? Do you think that adding dependencie
65 matches
Mail list logo
