On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> So unless new issues come up once the vote starts (which would be bad
> - that's why we have a DISCUSS phase) I would very much like to close
> the vote after the standard 72 hours.
+1
I'm persuaded that the week-long DISCUSS was a
Roman is saying he will start the vote tomorrow. You will see a thread
on this list with [VOTE] in the subject.
As to what the vote is about - this is the Apache Incubator PMC (Project
Management Committee) voting as to whether to accept Groovy into the
Incubator. Votes from others, who aren’t on
Hi everybody,
when will the voting start? Or if it did start already when will there
be decision?
Thanks and kind regards,
Pascal
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-m
This should also be done for the logo as well... I don't
know the provenance of it, but I am sure that the Groovy
team does not want to abandon its logo.
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> On 3/17/15 12:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Shane
On 3/17/15 12:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>> On 3/11/15 4:20 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>>> Great initiative!
>>>
>>> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
>>> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivo
Hi Russel!
thanks for following up here. I've seen that others have commented
on the points you raised, but I also wanted to chime in before this
thread goes into a VOTE phase.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 08:55 +0100, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
> > ...having seen some of the issues that came from prior proposals rushing
> > a vote, I'd like to see [VOTE] thread to exist for at least a week
>
> I don't thin
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> ...You may think that the discussion has died down, but perhaps recall
> the lesson of NiFi. Or not, it might not strike you as applicable...
I wasn't involved (or maybe I think I wasn't ;-) so I don't - archive
URLs welcome.
-Bertrand
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...having seen some of the issues that came from prior proposals rushing
> a vote, I'd like to see [VOTE] thread to exist for at least a week
I don't think letting the vote drag on purpose is useful - after
almost a week of discu
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...I still owe IPMC an answer about status of the Groovy trademark.
> I'm trying to research this on my end with Pivotal team...
Sure, it's good to find out but I don't think that's a blocker for
entering incubation.
-Bertrand
-
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> On 3/11/15 4:20 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> Great initiative!
>>
>> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
>> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
>> the name groovy, and if so
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> You may think that the discussion has died down, but perhaps recall
> the lesson of NiFi. Or not, it might not strike you as applicable.
exactly!
Thanks,
Roman.
-
To un
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
> we can discuss for 3 more months, but at some point, isn't it time to
> start a vote ?
Sure. But at least a week for something like Groovy should be expected.
Besides, I still owe IPMC an answer about status of the Groovy
Hi!
having seen some of the issues that came from prior proposals rushing
a vote, I'd like to see [VOTE] thread to exist for at least a week.
I am going to start a vote tomorrow once a full week of [DISCUSS]
elapses.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
>
You may think that the discussion has died down, but perhaps recall
the lesson of NiFi. Or not, it might not strike you as applicable.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>>... Starting the vote on the propos
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
> ...I wouldn't mind starting a vote early, given the time constraints that we
> have :)...
Ok, I'll start the vote Wednesday morning CET unless we hear from
Roman until then.
-Bertrand
-
On 17/03/2015 15:34, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
...We already have demonstrated our ability to raises various points on
various subjects, time to demonstrate The ASF in action !..
+1 - as I said elsethread it's in theory Roman's job to
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> ...We already have demonstrated our ability to raises various points on
> various subjects, time to demonstrate The ASF in action !..
+1 - as I said elsethread it's in theory Roman's job to start the
vote, as the Groovy champion.
But I
Hi guys,
we can discuss for 3 more months, but at some point, isn't it time to
start a vote ?
We already have demonstrated our ability to raises various points on
various subjects, time to demonstrate The ASF in action !
-
To
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
>... Starting the vote on the proposal is Roman's job anyway, as the Groovy
> champion, so let's wait for him...
Is there any reason to wait more?
IMO the discussion on the proposal has died down so we can move forward.
Roman, WDYT?
-B
Hi Hervé,
It would be very nice, if it fits the general schedule (Groovy is not
yet voted).
Best regards,
On 16/03/2015 23:00, Hervé Boutemy wrote:
Hi,
We're scheduling the Jira migration for Maven projects on the week-end of
4/5/6 april.
If this schedule is fine for Groovy, I suppose it wo
Hi,
We're scheduling the Jira migration for Maven projects on the week-end of
4/5/6 april.
If this schedule is fine for Groovy, I suppose it would be ok to add Groovy
Jira project to the actual list [1]
Just tell, and I'll avoid to remove Groovy from the full dump we'll have
during the migratio
yes, I dropped every project we didn't want to import since some of them had
special configuration that were causing issues
The first dump we used contained everything
Regards,
Hervé
Le lundi 16 mars 2015 10:03:37 Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> On 16 March 2015 at 09:58, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >
On 16 March 2015 at 09:58, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 16/03/2015 09:53, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > Arg! hit send too soon.
> >
> > You should really check in with Hervé to confirm that Groovy was in the
> > export. I am 99% confident that your issues and comments are in the XML
> > dump, but you re
On 16/03/2015 09:53, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Arg! hit send too soon.
>
> You should really check in with Hervé to confirm that Groovy was in the
> export. I am 99% confident that your issues and comments are in the XML
> dump, but you really should check with Hervé to be certain.
>
> Also you m
Arg! hit send too soon.
You should really check in with Hervé to confirm that Groovy was in the
export. I am 99% confident that your issues and comments are in the XML
dump, but you really should check with Hervé to be certain.
Also you may want to ask Mark Thomas what exactly is involved in prep
On 16 March 2015 at 09:19, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
> Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments do not
> matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of comments is
> very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.
>
> 2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 St
Thanks Stephen, sounds like a good news. For us the attachments do not
matter much, there are not so many. However, keeping track of comments is
very important, because some issues have a lot of discussions.
2015-03-16 10:08 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly :
> On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodor
On 16 March 2015 at 08:55, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
>
>> When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
>> Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
>> up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
>> *included* in that?
You should check with Hervé, but as far as I am aware it is a dump of
everything as JIRA only provides for a full export.
Because there are bits of security information in the export, access to the
dump is restricted, but ASF INFRA also have access to the dump, or we can
probably give one of you a
Am 16.03.2015 09:25, schrieb Upayavira:
When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
*included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
here?
Even if St
When Stephen Connolly says ”We @ Maven will have a full dump of the
Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration…” isn’t he implying that the Groovy issues are
*included* in that? I.e. there’s not so much for you to worry about
here?
Upayavira
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015, at 12:13 AM, Jochen
On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> > On 14 Mar 2015, at 00:13, Jochen Theodorou > wrote:
> >
> > Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> >> (Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability
> to
> >> bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
Perhaps you might consider asking Maven questions on a Maven list? If
you peruse the Maven dev list, you'll find an ongoing conversation.
>
>> On 14 Mar 2015, at 00:13, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>>
>> Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Con
> On 14 Mar 2015, at 00:13, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
> Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>> (Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
>> bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
>> JIRA, one to let us test the process
> On 13 Mar 2015, at 20:48, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
> Well, Cédric raised the point about the release versioning schema during
> incubation. I agree with him, that it would be strange to release Groovy
> 2.4.2 as Groovy 2.4.2-incubating. Do we need to talk about this?
It'll cause lots of confu
Message-
From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 14:39
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal
(Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
bend his ear. As a result I
Am 13.03.2015 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
(Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
migrate)
ah ok, that explains
Am 13.03.2015 22:37, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
We @ Maven will have a full dump of the Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration...
you mean more than a JSON export lacking comments and attachements?
bye Jochen
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: htt
(Disclosure Ben works for my employers, so I have slightly more ability to
bend his ear. As a result I got him to agree to do two full exports from
JIRA, one to let us test the process and a second when we are ready to
migrate)
On 13 March 2015 at 21:37, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> We @ Maven will
We @ Maven will have a full dump of the Codehaus JIRA and we have a VM set
up to test migration...
On 13 March 2015 at 17:36, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
> Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus only
> wants to provide a CSV export which is far from being enough for us
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> ...it would be strange to release Groovy
> 2.4.2 as Groovy 2.4.2-incubating. Do we need to talk about this?..
that can be discussed once the podling is established.
-Bertrand
--
2015-03-13 14:09 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou :
> Am 13.03.2015 13:28, schrieb Benson Margulies:
> [...]
>
>> This has nothing to do with the start of incubation in my view.
>>
>
> +1
>
> I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really the
> only discussion point about somethin
2015-03-13 18:36 GMT+01:00 Cédric Champeau :
> Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus only
> wants to provide a CSV export which is far from being enough for us. I hope
> someone at Apache has experience on this and will be able to get in touch
> with Codehaus to pr
Le 13/03/15 12:13, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
>> community. Forgive me presuming to say this but this seems a
>> contradiction with The Apache Way as written about. Also it is very
>> CVCS/Subversion focussed.
>>
>> In a DVCS world, committers are just the gatekeepers of the central
>> mainline, the j
Am 13.03.2015 17:49, schrieb Stian Soiland-Reyes:
[...]
Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is not
done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by mid-April,
which to me sounds optimistic.
well, once we are accepted we will communicate that. There is
Yes the biggest problem is going to be the migration of JIRA. Codehaus only
wants to provide a CSV export which is far from being enough for us. I hope
someone at Apache has experience on this and will be able to get in touch
with Codehaus to provide a better migration path.
2015-03-13 18:33 GMT+0
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> ...Is the wider Groovy community aware that transitioning to Apache is not
> done overnight? There is no guarantee this will be complete by mid-April,
> which to me sounds optimistic...
The full transition might take some time, but as
First of all, this is a great proposal and as a occasional Groovy coder,
Groovy would be a very valuable addition to the Apache family.
My only concern is with the timing of the below:
> Groovy 2.4 will
> be the last major release under Pivotal Software's sponsorship, which
> is scheduled to end
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
>> I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really the
>> only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen once we are
>> incubation? Shoul
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> ...Shouldn't we focus more on the things that get prevent the
> project from entering incubation?...
Indeed - the discussions about committers/PMC are useful to the
Incubator at large but not directly related to accepting Groovy.
In gene
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really the
> only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen once we are
> incubation? Shouldn't we focus more on the things that get prevent the
> project fr
Am 13.03.2015 13:28, schrieb Benson Margulies:
[...]
This has nothing to do with the start of incubation in my view.
+1
I really think this point has been made clear by every one. Is really
the only discussion point about something that is supposed to happen
once we are incubation? Shouldn't
JimJag, for years, has written about the cultural implications of
DVCS, and the email here supports what he's written. So I think we
need to pay close attention.
I think that we care about both PMC and committer inventory. I, for
one, would not want to see an Apache project that restricted commit
Hi Russel,
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> ...I think the language of sustainability and committer status has to
> change in this discussion...
I do agree very much with the overall idea that you're expressing, and
I think it matches the spirit of Apache projects sustain
On 13 March 2015 at 10:50, Russel Winder wrote:
> I have been reading this thread via GMane with some worry. I have now
> joined the email list and this post is fortuitous in that it allows me
> to make some of the points I wish to contribute.
>
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 08:55 +0100, Bertrand Delac
On 12/03/2015 15:27, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> ...Easy: we reach out to all the folks who may have a legitimate claim to
>> have
>> contributed to the project in substantial ways and ivite extend an offer to
>> them
>> (explaining
> community. Forgive me presuming to say this but this seems a
> contradiction with The Apache Way as written about. Also it is very
> CVCS/Subversion focussed.
>
> In a DVCS world, committers are just the gatekeepers of the central
> mainline, the judges/jury as to what meets the quality criteria
I have been reading this thread via GMane with some worry. I have now
joined the email list and this post is fortuitous in that it allows me
to make some of the points I wish to contribute.
On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 08:55 +0100, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Cédric Cham
Le 12/03/15 18:59, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
>> proposal:
>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
> I've read through the proposal (rev 17). It looks good to m
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
> ...I see no point in wanting to reach a target number of
> committers. Having a large number of quality contributions, more
> contributors is IMHO more important than people having write access to the
> repo
Once again, there's no set
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
> proposal:
>https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
Thanks Roman,
the proposal looks great and I am super happy to see Groovy in these lands!
As the PMC chair for
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> It is my pleasure and privilege to open up the following
> proposal:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GroovyProposal
I've read through the proposal (rev 17). It looks good to me.
FWIW I winced a bit on Apache Pig's behalf when
Am 12.03.2015 18:15, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
[…]
In short:
* blocking proposal on the # of initial committers -- no, or at
least I don't think so.
* killing ourselves over reaching every single contributor on GH -- no.
* doing a reasonable due diligence *while incubating* on reachin
On 12/03/2015 18:19, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
I made this remark to myself, which is that too many people still think that
Groovy is only a dynamic language. I think it's a problem because
it's not, and some people really dislike dynamic l
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
> I made this remark to myself, which is that too many people still think that
> Groovy is only a dynamic language. I think it's a problem because
> it's not, and some people really dislike dynamic languages. When they read
> something like
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 12.03.2015 17:21, schrieb Ted Dunning:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>* several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
>>>* one or two creators of graphics (icons, or
I made this remark to myself, which is that too many people still think
that Groovy is only a dynamic language. I think it's a problem because
it's not, and some people really dislike dynamic languages. When they
read something like "the Groovy dynamic object-oriented programming
language" (from
On 12/03/2015 17:53, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
... I am quite certain, most Incubator members would accept a project to
have a "vibrant community", if the project could show, for example,
Am 12.03.2015 17:21, schrieb Ted Dunning:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
* several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
* one or two creators of graphics (icons, or whatever, without
committer privileges)
* one or more organizations providin
subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:22 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Cédric Champeau; Paul King; pascalschumacher; Guillaume Laforge
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation
> On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>> ... I am quite certain, most Incubator members would accept a project to
>> have a "vibrant community", if the project could show, for example,...
>
> Note that we don
; Guillaume Laforge
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal
I would have thought that graduation would be all about showing that whatever
list of committers we have (big or small) is working well? Having a large
number of committers certainly makes sense with a subversion mindset but it&#
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> * several writers of documentation (without committer privileges)
> * one or two creators of graphics (icons, or whatever, without
> committer privileges)
> * one or more organizations providing hosting services, and the like
>
This
2015-03-12 16:27 GMT+01:00 Bertrand Delacretaz :
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
> > ...Easy: we reach out to all the folks who may have a legitimate claim
> to have
> > contributed to the project in substantial ways and ivite extend an offer
> to them
> > (explaining
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...Easy: we reach out to all the folks who may have a legitimate claim to have
> contributed to the project in substantial ways and ivite extend an offer to
> them
> (explaining that being a committer is...well... a commitment). The # of
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 12.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i wrote:
>>>
>>> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
>>> initial
>>> commiters are only 5...
>>
>>
>
I would have thought that graduation would be all about showing that whatever
list of committers we have (big or small) is working well? Having a large
number of committers certainly makes sense with a subversion mindset but it's
possibly an anti-pattern with a DVCS mindset (at least for a sta
Le 12/03/15 11:14, Jochen Theodorou a écrit :
> Am 12.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i wrote:
>>> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and
>>> the initial
>>> commiters are only 5...
>>
>> As others have said
Le 12/03/15 10:57, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i wrote:
>> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
>> initial
>> commiters are only 5...
> As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
> also
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
>... I am quite certain, most Incubator members would accept a project to
> have a "vibrant community", if the project could show, for example,...
Note that we don't care about the state of the community when entering
the incubator, that's
My feeling is, that there this proposal has a positive feedback overall.
How about we put together a list of things that have to be changed/resolved
in the proposal before a vote can be started? I see:
- trademark issues
- Explanation of initial committers to community ratio
what else?
Benedikt
Am 12.03.2015 12:04, schrieb Jochen Wiedmann:
Hello, Jochen,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou
community equals committers?
No. The community is more than the team of committers. I'm sure you
understand. OTOH, the set of committers can be considered a
representation of the c
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 12.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
>> it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers
>> to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that
>> community before graduating.
>
> community equals
Hello, Jochen,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou
> community equals committers?
No. The community is more than the team of committers. I'm sure you
understand. OTOH, the set of committers can be considered a
representation of the community.
I am quite certain, most Incubator me
Am 12.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i wrote:
...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
commiters are only 5...
As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
also agree that it
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i wrote:
> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
> commiters are only 5...
As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I
also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committe
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
> caught my eye.
>
> The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
> commiters are only 5.
This, is a GREAT question! Thank you so much for
Hi.
Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
caught my eye.
The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the initial
commiters are only 5.
I am not raising it as a problem, just would like a little explanation.
I think the project would fit nicel
Le 11/03/15 21:20, Martijn Dashorst a écrit :
> Great initiative!
>
> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
> the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?
I think we have r
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> The paragraph that begins with "Despite all those advantages ..." doesn't
> seem to contribute anything to the proposal, and might benefit from either
> being cut, or by calling out an action - that is, does this mean that you
> expect to engage
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> On 3/11/15 4:20 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> Great initiative!
>>
>> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
>> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
>> the name groovy, and if so
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> If there have been over 200 contributors to the project, I would expect to
> see an effort to pull some of them in shortly after entering incubation...
> Assuming they can demonstrate merrit.
If anybody can share 'prior art' in this area
On 3/11/15 4:20 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Great initiative!
>
> Just one question: I don't see anything related to the groovy name and
> possible trademark in the proposal. Does Pivotal have any claims to
> the name groovy, and if so are those claims transferred to the ASF?
Good point. Just
The github-asf integration is fairly smooth, if not as cool as the big
Merge button. For the requester there is no difference, only the Apache
committer have to do manual steps.
An example email, which we set up to go to dev@:
http://apache-taverna-dev.markmail.org/thread/gq62b33me5mjjkjw
If you
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
> Don't worry your question is perfectly legitimate. I don't know if it's
> specific to Groovy, but we indeed have a lot of contributors, but not so
> many recurrent one that may become committers.
Thanks, please also be aware that a committe
Don't worry your question is perfectly legitimate. I don't know if it's
specific to Groovy, but we indeed have a lot of contributors, but not so
many recurrent one that may become committers.
2015-03-11 22:11 GMT+01:00 jan i :
> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
> > On We
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, jan i >
> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Having just skimmed the proposal, that in general look good, one thing
> > caught my eye.
> >
> > The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
> initia
2015-03-11 21:37 GMT+01:00 Pascal Schumacher :
> Am 11.03.2015 um 21:24 schrieb Benedikt Ritter:
>
> Is the groovy project aware that (to my knowledge) the coding has to
> happen on ASF infrastructure? You won't be able to use the github web UI
> for merging PRs for example, because currently the
Am 11.03.2015 20:08, schrieb jan i:
The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the
initial commiters are only 5.
I am not raising it as a problem, just would like a little explanation.
It is only 5 because we did work mostly with github pull requests. Many
people just spe
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
