On Oct 17, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
I don't have a binding vote, but my thought is Harmony has the
same issue as Felix: namely they haven't done a release or provided
even a test release to the IPMC so the IPMC can be sure the podling
knows the proper way to do a release and
On Oct 18, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
A snapshot doesn't require any thought. I'd be happy with a
vote on a release plan, myself, or even just a trial run.
Something to indicate that folks understand what it is that
a PMC is supposed to do in real life (i.e., make releases while
On Oct 18, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:10:37PM +0200, Mads Toftum wrote:
On the surface everything appears fine to the point of graduating
minus
the proving that you can do a release. But given past experiences
with
graduating large projects too fast,
On Oct 18, 2006, at 9:52 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 18, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Don Brown wrote:
Agreed. I don't think it is fair to be making up graduation
requirements right when a project is about to graduate.
The graduation requirement is that a majority of the PMC members
agree that
On Oct 18, 2006, at 10:42 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 10/18/06, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You said that you have run Tomcat on top of Harmony. Why can't you
produce a release such that I can throw the Tomcat jar at it, too?
Sure, it is a developer release, but it let's
Crap. Damn Send button. Reprinting:
Without question, Harmony knows how to manage its legal bits. Can the
community navigate through all those hurdles and processes and other
shtuff to actually produce a release? Is this community set up to
produce releases, or is it set up to check off legal
Geez, Leo. The email below was #8 of a series. Maybe you can collect
your thoughts and post a single email that pulls the threads together?
Rather than continuing N threads, you could funnel them into one...
On 10/19/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 18, 2006, at 10:42 PM, robert
On Oct 18, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
You said that you have run Tomcat on top of Harmony. Why can't you
produce a release such that I can throw the Tomcat jar at it, too?
Sure, it is a developer release, but it let's non-Harmony folks play
with your project.
Is there a specific
I'm not dismissing the importance of Greg's concern, and am not trying
to take the Harmony conversation down a rat-hole (or different rat-hole
in this case...), so I changed the Subject line.
---
Let me take a brief side trip here about [Unwritten] Incubator
Graduation Requirements
I made the mistake of not responding publicly, thinking that it was just
best to ignore it. I had nothing to do with it - it didn't represent any
sentiment that I have, nor was I a participant in any such email
conversation, or ever have been. My head has only room for one hat at a
time,
Oh, what a trip this has been.
I like consensus. I don't like out-of-the-blue discussion-less votes on
big issues (and Incubator graduation is a big issue). I prefer to have
a vote as an unambiguous ratification of what was agreed upon beforehand.
In retrospect, it might have been
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:32:04AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
If we can reach consensus (with the exception of Mads who doesn't want
to see Harmony here, and Roy for other good reasons due to my
stupidity), I'd like to then move to the ratification vote.
I'll withdraw most of my
On 10/19/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 18, 2006, at 10:42 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 10/18/06, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You said that you have run Tomcat on top of Harmony. Why can't you
produce a release such that I can throw the Tomcat jar at it, too?
On 10/19/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 18, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
You said that you have run Tomcat on top of Harmony. Why can't you
produce a release such that I can throw the Tomcat jar at it, too?
Sure, it is a developer release, but it let's non-Harmony folks
Thanks for the review...
About the idl.g, I don't think we need a license header as it is through
the antlr's license (which we have in the source distribution). Should I
include antlr's license in the idl.g? We have it in the
trunk/etc/third_party_licenses/antlr-bsd-license.txt.
I will look at
Hi robert,
Just noticed that we have the package headers in the idl.g which should
be apache licensed the rest of the grammar is under antlr license...
What's the general rule that is followed in this case?
- Balaji
-Original Message-
From: Mosur Ravi, Balaji
Sent: Thursday, October
Hi Robert,
Just noticed that we have the package headers in the idl.g which should
be apache licensed the rest of the grammar is under antlr license...
What's the general rule that is followed in this case?
- Balaji
-Original Message-
From: Mosur Ravi, Balaji
Sent: Thursday, October
The OpenJPA incubator community voted on and has approved a proposal
to release OpenJPA 0.9.5-incubating. Pursuant to the Releases section
of the Incubation Policy (http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/
Incubation_Policy.html#Releases ) we would now like to request the
permission of the
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Oh, what a trip this has been.
:)
I'd like to ask that those who have asked for a release to assuage
concerns about community health and capability to please read those 3
testaments from the mentors (ok, in Leo's case, 71 or so...) and please
consider withdrawing
Some copyright header/licence/notice issues were found in the 4th release
candidate of the
4.0.2 build. I have cut and RC 5 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes and it's
available here:
http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC5/maven1/incubator-activemq/distributions/
Maven 1
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I agree with the motivations behind asking for a release, but
disagree that a release is the only way to satisfy IPMC's need for
information about the health and capability of a podling's future
life as a TLP.
It isn't -- it is just
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
IMHO - the only reason to have a project (TLP or subproject, no matter) is
to release code. Anything prior to a release might be a sandbox, it might
be a podling, it might be a lose alliance of the willing. Whatever...
[snip]
That said ... I don't believe
On 10/19/06, Mosur Ravi, Balaji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the review...
About the idl.g, I don't think we need a license header as it is through
the antlr's license (which we have in the source distribution). Should I
include antlr's license in the idl.g? We have it in the
On 10/19/06, Mosur Ravi, Balaji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi robert,
Just noticed that we have the package headers in the idl.g which should
be apache licensed the rest of the grammar is under antlr license...
What's the general rule that is followed in this case?
this is the right sort of
Passed with binding +1's from rdonkin, geirm, dims
and non-binding +1 from matezw
Thank you everyone.
--
Jeremy
On Oct 15, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The Tuscany PPMC has voted to release a parent pom and buildtools
jar that are dependencies for a forthcoming M2 release. These
All-
Actually, I'd like to withdraw this vote ... we found a couple issues
we want to fix first.
I'll re-submit the vote request once they have been addressed. Sorry
about that.
On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
The OpenJPA incubator community voted on and has
On 10/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
the source is the heart of any apache release. most issues with
releases are actually issues with the source. a community that does
not understand how to create source that can be released cannot (in my
opinion) graduate.
But
On 10/19/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some copyright header/licence/notice issues were found in the 4th release
candidate of the
4.0.2 build. I have cut and RC 5 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes and it's
available here:
On 10/18/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Robert,
hi hiram
From: robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/activemq-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/common.js
worries me since it doesn't look like it was created
Sam Ruby wrote:
Of course, one could simply manufacture a synthetic release for the
purposes of satisfying a perceived incubation requirement, but honestly,
that seems more like one of the ticky-marks driven processes I tend to
see within my day job than anything I would expect to see at
Robert,
Is this something you would bring over to the ASF, and which we can start
promoting around the ASF to use?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Greg Stein wrote:
can they get the community to produce a (developer) release of Harmony?
A pro-forma release would really tell us very little of that, especially
when you combined with your follow-on:
For example, I think about all the hell the Tomcat community went
through with the whole
On 10/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
...
I'd like to ask that those who have asked for a release to assuage
concerns about community health and capability to please read those
3 testaments from the mentors (ok, in Leo's
On 10/19/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/19/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some copyright header/licence/notice issues were found in the 4th
release
candidate of the
4.0.2 build. I have cut and RC 5 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes and
it's
available
+1 for UIMA, even if some other ones are cute.
Keeping UIMA makes it easy (for me) to pull just relevant pages from Google,
Technorati, Simpy, etc. instead of also pulling up pages about cute animals,
islands, and so on.
Otis
- Original Message
From: Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Into the incubator, of course ;)
geir
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Robert,
Is this something you would bring over to the ASF, and which we can start
promoting around the ASF to use?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Or the Labs! ;)
runs away laughing /
Yoav
On 10/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Into the incubator, of course ;)
geir
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Robert,
Is this something you would bring over to the ASF, and which we can start
promoting around the ASF to use?
---
Greg Stein wrote:
On 10/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
...
I'd like to ask that those who have asked for a release to assuage
concerns about community health and capability to please read those
3 testaments from the
I'm pretty resigned to the fact that we're not going to be able to
present a resolution to the board this month for Harmony. I do keep a
flicker of hope, mainly because I'm an eternal optimist.
I do think it's a shame, because I believe the core values sought and
taught in the incubation
Sam Ruby wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
IMHO - the only reason to have a project (TLP or subproject, no matter) is
to release code. Anything prior to a release might be a sandbox, it might
be a podling, it might be a lose alliance of the willing. Whatever...
[snip]
That said ... I
On 10/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty resigned to the fact that we're not going to be able to
present a resolution to the board this month for Harmony. I do keep a
flicker of hope, mainly because I'm an eternal optimist.
Starting the discussion less than a week
On 10/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this something you would bring over to the ASF, and which we can start
promoting around the ASF to use?
To be honest, I don't believe it's a good fit. Not every project
needs to be here... -- justin
I just wanted to run RAT on RAT ;)
geir
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this something you would bring over to the ASF, and which we can start
promoting around the ASF to use?
To be honest, I don't believe it's a good fit. Not every project
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
IMHO - the only reason to have a project (TLP or subproject, no matter) is
to release code. Anything prior to a release might be a sandbox, it might
be a podling, it might be a lose alliance of the willing. Whatever...
Don Brown wrote:
Agreed. I don't think it is fair to be making up graduation
requirements right when a project is about to graduate.
+1
And Harmony will have my +1 for graduation too.
Paul
--
Paul Fremantle
http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
On 10/19/06, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don Brown wrote:
Agreed. I don't think it is fair to be making up graduation
requirements right when a project is about to graduate.
+1
Bah. That's certainly not the case here. -- justin
46 matches
Mail list logo
