Davanum Srinivas wrote:
#1) End user using an Incubator podling m2 artifact directly: End
users need to specify our repo in their pom.xml explicity. this is
a conscious decision.
#2) End user using a regular Apache project that depends on incubator
podling artifact
Actually, both cases
Didn't we retire this Kabuki? It is still listed as active.
I'll check the archives if no one beats me to it. Else we should formally
retired it. And we should review, again, the roster
(http://incubator.apache.org/projects/) to see if anything else should be
moved to dormant status.
Bruce Snyder wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
users should have to make an explicit decision to make use of
Incubator projects. As many users as want to make that
decision are welcome to do so, but yes, we do not want widespread,
unintentional, adoption by users who may be stuck
Bruce Snyder wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way* *way* *way* smarter
about repositories.
Including delivering the long awaited security checks for downloaded
artifacts.
Instead of casting stones, why not file issues
Martin Cooper wrote:
Didn't we retire this Kabuki?
It was withdrawn by the original proposers.
Yes, I recall the situtation and discussion. Either way, we should no
longer be listing it as active.
--- Noel
-
To
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set up their
pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided mechanism), end
users will have to add incubator repos explicitly/consciously and
won't get podling jars pulled in w/o their knowledge.
What's
Henri Yandell wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
IMO, calling a vote in the middle of a very active discussion leads to
one
of two things:
- a VOTE thread hijacked for discussion
- a subtle push to terminate discussion and count votes
FWIW, I don't particularly feel the same about a poll
Dims,
Let's focus this on the general part of your question:
what's the incentive for a project [to] push for diversity/graduation?
That's an appropriate and important question.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
We've discussed this many times before, and so far the consensus has been to
not conflate the Incubator artifacts with regular ASF artifacts. I am
still -1 to conflating ASF artifacts with incubator artifacts, but that's
just my view.
--- Noel
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Do we have anything written down about what happens/should happen to
incoming codebases/projects AFTER a podling graduates? Example, what
happens if a few people want to keep the old/original project alive?
shrug I suppose that would result in a fork. Is this
This month's ASF Board reports should be written up on the wiki at
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2007
River and Woden are not nearly detailed enough. We need status, issues
required for graduation, etc. Not just the project description. The other
reports can be viewed for examples.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
And Triple Soup is missing, but nothing has happened with that podling
yet.
Well, not *nothing*. I see code in SVN, for example. Please add it to the
roster.
do we want PMC members to sign off on the reports like last month?
Yes. Tomorrow was the official end date for
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Mar 10, 2007, at 10:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+11Mar07:
+ - Release: Apache Lucene.Net.2.0 build 004 final
George - Again I have to claim being lame on the specifics here, but
what vote passed a final release?
Yes, what vote? I see a [VOTE] thread
Craig Russell wrote:
The board resolution to establish a TLP contains the
initial composition of the PMC.
But I notice that the initial composition of an incubating Podling
PMC is not a suggested part of the incubator proposal. No one seems
responsible for it.
No such thing as a Podling
Roy,
At various times, various people have stated various rather
incongruent descriptions of what has to be done when a podling
performs a release
One thing that seems to have been forgotten is that an approved
release must be in the form of SOURCE CODE and must be placed
in the associated
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Your quarterly report mentions possibly legal issues related to crypto.
What are the issues?
We need to file a export notification for use of crypto code (not our
code, third party, bouncy castle, I believe) in one of the abdera
modules
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Noel J. Bergma wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
We need to file a export notification for use of crypto code (not our
code, third party, bouncy castle, I believe) in one of the abdera
modules.
That's fine. I suspected that it might be something like that.
HOWEVER,
John Kaputin wrote:
+1 Deepal Jayasinghe (WSPMC binding)
+1 Jeremy Hughes (WSPMC binding)
Please note that so long as the project is in the Incubator, other PMC votes
are not binding.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe,
+1 to put it into a dormant status.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReportingSchedule
This month's reports are DUE BY February 14. That's next Wednesday.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Craig Russell asked:
Henri gave definitions for two of the three. Examples of escalation would
be raising an issue to the Incubator PMC or the ASF Board if you are
having problems that can't be resolved by not going that route.
--- Noel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic
+1, except would someone please strike:
RESOLVED, that the initial insert name here Project be and hereby
is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to
encourage open development and increased participation in the
insert name here Project; and be it further
from whatever
Ted Husted wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
As noted by James Margaris, yourself, Bertrand, et al, this does not
actually address the issue where someone is committing co-workers'
work, rather than having the co-workers participating on-list. We
are really looking to have those co-workers
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
The only thing that slightly annoyed the Board was that *we* had to
red-flag it - which means that the Incubator PMC is not reviewing
the reports as a whole before it is sent to the Board.
I wonder if anyone other than me is reading everything before or even after
it
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
rather than close the cat-herding the weekend before the report
is [due], we could set a cut-off of the second Monday of each
month, or similarly appropriate date, and give the PMC a week to
review and approve the report before it is submitted
Ted Leung wrote:
Clearly there needs to be some corrective action, and more guidance
on how an ASF project is supposed to conduct itself.
That's not much of a plan, which is what the board is asking for.
Perhaps not, but it got folks talking. :-)
Paul and I are about at our wit's end on
This is a proposal to start a rdf database server project at apache.
Interesting.
What do you think?
Seems as if there are sufficient interests to start it. Will it do anything
with either Derby, ApacheDS or JackRabbit, in terms of potential
collaboration?
--- Noel
The ASF Board, by Cliff Schmidt, wrote:
The report on Heraldry mentions a single large block checkin
Two large block check-ins in January. One for python, one for ruby. It
seems as if most of the development is happening off-line and being
committed by proxy. Paul Querna posted one message
Martin Ritchie wrote:
How very odd.
I was sure I updated the wiki page at
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2007 first thing monday
morning (2007-01-15). I'm definately sure I save the page too.
But I don't see the changes I made when looking at RecentChanges.
shrug
You'll report in
Apparently, I missed Noel's final cut-off by six minutes.
We got it into the Board just under the wire.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Carl Trieloff wrote:
We created a report for Qpid. I guess that we mailed it to the wrong
location, where should the report be sent for inclusion?
The Wiki is the staging area for the report, or you can post to [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Where did you send it?
--- Noel
C'mon, Folks!
The reports are overdue again. Yoav did the grunt work, preparing
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2007
and the rest of the initial 2007 reporting pages. Felix, UIMA, NMaven and
Graffito have reported. Agila and AltRMI are going formally dormant.
Where are Ivy,
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Lucene4c was closed down months ago, I imagine it should no longer be
on the list.
Thanks. Sorry, I missed that when I was cross-referencing the wiki against
http://incubator.apache.org/projects. And Wicket seems to be OK. As best I
can tell, cross-referencing the
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On 1/9/07, Upayavira wrote:
We submitted Oct/Nov/Dec, which was the first three months of
Incubation. Therefore, the next would be March.
We could be wrong of course.
The dangers of tracking meta-data in too many places. The reporting
schedule
To the best of my knowledge, UIMA didn't report until November, so that
would be November, December, January, with quarterlies starting in April.
*IF* they get January in on time.
No need for the last sentence. They already had, as I previously noted.
:-) Just a bad edit before posting.
More and more ASF Members continue to join the Incubator PMC to help
shephard projects through the process. ActiveMQ is the latest of a recent
string of ASF Projects asking to go TLP. Solr requested graduation to the
Lucene project. Synapse graduated to the WS project.
Agila has been placed
More and more ASF Members continue to join the Incubator PMC to help
shephard projects through the process. ActiveMQ is the latest of a recent
string of ASF Projects asking to go TLP. Solr requested graduation to the
Lucene project. Synapse graduated to the WS project.
Agila has been placed
More and more ASF Members continue to join the Incubator PMC to help
shephard projects through the process. ActiveMQ is the latest of a recent
string of ASF Projects asking to go TLP. Solr requested graduation to the
Lucene project. Synapse graduated to the WS project.
Agila has been placed
This is a short reporting month, given that January 1 was a Monday, so
please remember to have all Board reports finished by the end of the
weekend.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
Thank you, Yoav. :-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
Given the peculiar nature of log4php, I think there's a rather odd
notion available of considering it to retire from incubation into the
logging project as a retired subproject. Close down the lists, and
keep the svn as it is in logging/.
Given
Jim,
Keep in mind that JINI significantly predates all of the current Web
Services efforts, not just here but anywhere. Technically, SOAP at
Microsoft *might* predate JINI, but JINI was out and about (in so far as it
has ever gained much marketshare) before Web Services as we know them.
In any
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We have lots of competing proposals and projects all across the ASF.
And, many of them don't communicate for extremely petty and personal
reasons; some don't communicate because they disagree on the technical
direction.
While they are within the Incubator, I'd prefer
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
It is with great relief and hope that I propose that the Apache
Incubator PMC vote to incubate [the project formerly known as Jini]
No kidding! And it's about time! :-)
You may be familiar with this project as it has been discussed under
other names, including
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:16
The following page has been changed by HiramChirino:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2006
The comment on the change is:
Adding ActiveMQ report.
Too late. Please report again next month.
--- Noel
Brian,
I believe that you are looking for a software grant.
--- Noel
-Original Message-
From: Brian McCallister [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 19:44
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Wombat IP Clearance
The Apache HTTPD project has decided
Projects in the Incubator have been very busy. Tuscany, Qpid, Felix, CXF,
Synapse, Yoko, OpenJPA and Abdera have all been going through Incubator
releases in the past month.
Cayenne and OFBiz are proposed to Board to move to TLP status. At least a
couple of other projects should be getting
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Yes, its that time of the month again, so this should not come as a
surprise
to anyone. Reports are due on or by Friday, December 15, 2006
And, once again, I am finalizing the Board report, and I have a long list of
missing projects: ActiveMQ (and they expect to go TLP
Brett Porter wrote:
I've added the OpenEJB report. Sorry for missing the deadline.
Thanks. I've copied from the Wiki into my e-mail.
Anything that gets in before I go to sleep tonight will make it into the
report. Anything after that takes its chances. I might have time in the
morning
Mike Kienenberger wrote:
I've added an entry for Cayenne to the wiki based on
the discussions posted to Cayenne-dev last week.
Got it.
Please note that newly accepted TLPs have to report every month for the
first three months, so assuming that the Board accepts Cayenne and OFBiz,
that would
Yes, its that time of the month again, so this should not come as a surprise
to anyone. Reports are due on or by Friday, December
Henri's
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator-info.txt
shows the list of projects needing to report, plus any that have been newly
accepted.
James,
You posted your vote at:
Monday, December 04, 2006 17:12
You closed the vote after receiving the minimum possible number of votes by
announcing and releasing at:
Tuesday, December 05, 2006 18:47
That's just over 24 hours. It is considered an ASF practice to wait at least
72 hours
Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is some stupid virus of a template [...]
People should really look at actual resolutions that the Board
approves, not what gets sent in. We sometimes tweak them.
Perhaps we should provide a template that you do like? ;-)
--- Noel
Xavier Hanin wrote:
We've had a recent discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
discussing the possibility to bring the source code of
IvyDE (an eclipse plugin for Ivy) as a sub module of the
podling Ivy [1].
I didn't notice any discussion of it on the mailing list, but was there any
just to be sure to understand your opinion about this vote: are you
still contrary to approve the graduation of OFBiz
Nope, I'm good. :-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
Patrick,
Personally, I don't much care what we do at this point, although I'd
prefer a 0.9.7 to 0.9.6.1
However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do.
Figuring this out is something that the PPMC ought to deal with. You have
had several suggestions made to you, and one of the
My feedback (YMMV):
to be known as the The Apache Open For Business Project
(also known as Apache OFBiz)
I suppose that the Board can make a determination, but I think that Apache
OFBiz is OK, whereas The Apache Open For Business Project might be
confusing, e.g., would that be confused with
The Apache Open For Business Project community has voted internally
and agreed on readiness to graduate from the Apache Incubator
The vote passed with 8 binding +1 votes
Those would be which ones? I do not see 8 binding votes (yet).
As for my own vote, -1 on a procedural basis:
Based on
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I do not see 8 binding votes (yet).
The voting thread from ofbiz-dev@incubator.apache.org is available at
Yes, I reviewed the entire thread looking.
The binding votes are from David E. Jones, Hans Bakker, Si Chen,
Al Byers, Jacques Le Roux
Luciano Resende wrote:
LICENSE and NOTICE are available inside the war file at
WEB-INF\classes\META-INF, please let me know if they are in the wrong
place.
Why not simply under sample-companyweb-1.0-incubator-M2.war#META-INF/, along
with the other files? That would be the expected location,
Henri wrote:
you need 3 PMC votes to release (or add a committer).
You currently have 1 (Robert's).
Two. Dims voted tonight.
Since one vote was missing, I took the time to review the packages, and they
appear to have the necessary disclaimer, etc., although the information in
the .WAR files
Garrett Rooney wrote:
I think it's unrealistic to expect that the majority of the members of
the incubator PMC will be involved in most votes.
The Incubator PMC is the second largest in the ASF, and likely to become the
largest in short order. As long as we have sufficient oversight, I agree
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
People like Robert have been complete stud muffins in this regards.
Big kudos to him and RAT. It's been a major step forward and I'm very
thankful for his recent efforts.
Robert has been a huge help, and I'd like to encourage the use of RAT
ASF-wide, and at least as
Sam Ruby wrote:
I call on those who wish to set the expectation that certain votes are
to occur on this list to actively foster the notion that people who are
members of this PMC are expected to actively participate.
Better?
Yes. :-)
--- Noel
Ken asked:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
There seems to be a persistent delusion that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is where incubation happens.
That is perjorative. Want to start again?
What the flying moose ears is wrong with people today?
Everyone seems to be hyper-sensitive and twitchy
Ken wrote:
Garrett raises a point about which I want to ask.
What criteria should a mentor use when it comes to
voting on a release? I for one can't make any
judgement of its technical worth.
IMO: IP issues and decision making process. And RAT. And, of course, the
Mentor is able to also
Daniel Kulp wrote:
In the last couple months, I've seen MULTIPLE instances where the mentors
for various projects (according to their proposal and STATUS pages)
didn't even know they were mentors for the project. I've seen responses
like I didn't look at it or vote because I didn't know I
Ken wrot:
I just spent a considerable amount of time going through
all the podling status pages, and there's a certain..
lack of uniformity about them. I've attached the results.
Thank you for doing that, Ken. :-)
I've noted the same when doing spot checks in the past, as have (for
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
That may be true, but as ASF Members (which most are), I would expect
(and
have observed) that they have an overall concern regarding events that
effect the ASF.
Sure, but having an overall concern about events that effect the ASF
I did notice that other pages had changed, but I figured that it had
happened as part of the site generation process.
When that many pages change, it is usually due to EOL issues.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
I challenge all the other Incubator PMC members who have yet
to vote to follow through on their responsibilities as a
member of this PMC.
It seems to me that anyone paying attention would have seen that there were
issues with the proposed release, and they were being addressed. Therefore,
I
The Incubator continues to be very active.
The recent graduation of Harmony has led to a healthy discussion of what
types of votes should be held on which mailing lists. Ken Coar also
conducted a general review of the STATUS files for current Incubator
projects, which has led to a number of
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
It seems to me that anyone paying attention would have seen that there
were
issues with the proposed release, and they were being addressed.
And some people may also have missed, or been confused by, the fact that
Tuscany has several votes running concurrently
Sam Ruby wrote:
There seems to be a persistent delusion that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is where incubation happens.
That is perjorative. Want to start again?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
+1 Move to retirement
--- Noel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Yoav Shapira wrote:
am in favor of fall/spring/periodic cleanups in general.
+1 Would be happy if people would help select some other candidates.
I would not be at ease retiring a project without hearing from
its mentor, who's yet to vote on this thread.
It is such an old project it
Yes, its that time of the month again, so this should not come as a surprise
to anyone. Reports are due on or by Friday. Yes, THIS FRIDAY.
Henri's
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/incubator-info.txt
shows the list of projects needing to report, plus any that are newly
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
IMO, if the IPMC votes to approve the release, it should be slapped in
www.a.o/dist/incubator/ and hence use the same mirror system as
everyone else. The mirrors can live with the noise - the IPMC isn't
approving *that* many releases.
That's contrary to what we were
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
I have sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but no
one has moderated me in yet.
Instant Gratification much? No one else had gotten to it, but it got done
by me this AM.
Please note, that is NOT the same thing as requesting to join the Incubator
PMC.
---
In any event, let's get this thing going. *IF* the name has to change
again, it can change again.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leo Simons wrote:
I have never liked this explicit champion role, and I don't like
adding responsibilities to it, making things even more explicitly
dependent on the champion.
Keep in mind that the Champion role would still end with the begining of
Incubation. So the Champion's role is
Based upon all of the discussion -- and positive feedback from Dims, Eric
Newcomer, Craig Russell, Jason van Zyl, Martijn Dashorst, David Recordon and
Nail Pemberton; slight negative feedback from Leo Simons; and no strongly
negative feedback that I notice -- this is now put forth for a formal
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Should this really be Shall? We've been successful in Harmony with a
slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in
except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any
code.
Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made
robert burrell donkin wrote:
i've come to the strong opinion that all policy needs to be recorded
and document on the incubator site.
Agreed.
all changes to the policy document require a formal vote.
Which is what is being called here, after discussion since ApacheCon.
therefore to avoid
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
therefore to avoid a second vote to record a policy already approved,
all policy changes should be proposed in the form of patches to the
policy document.
I see your point, but it seems a tad excessive. And it may not make the
policy
What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a particular incubator project
?
See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Should this really be Shall? We've been successful in Harmony with a
slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in
except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any
code
Greg Stein wrote:
It doesn't matter whatsoever as long as you are VERY consistently
calling it Apache Braintree as you should be doing _anyways_
Would that apply equally to the two names that were more highly rated by the
JINI community than the one selected? What is the criteria? This topic
the board considered and accepted the TLP proposal for Harmony
at today's board meeting
Congratulations. :-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Anyway, I do realize that the discussion was two weeks ago. I just
missed it. Apologies. Ignore me :)
No way! Yes, discussion started weeks ago, stopped, and so I called a vote.
But I would never want to arbitrarily cut off discussion.
--- Noel
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve? Garrett's view is that you
basically
discarded the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and
dealt
with Committers after the fact. So a minimal Initial Committer list
would
be null except
+1
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam Ruby wrote:
How hard is it to know that to grep for the vote for
podling foo on [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
I'd love for this vote to set the precedent for future votes.
Accomplishes a number of things simultaneously, and naturally. Amongst
them, by exposing more people to incubation, I'll
In the recent period, there was a lot of sound and fury related to committer
lists, specifically related to CFX, and how a project is bootstrapped in
general. On the former, I've spoken at length with many of the parties
involved, and feel that it was a combination of misunderstandings,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
The only votes that are binding from the Incubator PMC are
those conducted on general@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Justification / basis? It seems clear that Sam disagrees with you.
the Incubator PMC shouldn't be forced to play hunt the wumpus
The vote was announced here,
Amendments that arrived late:
-
Roller
Roller 3.0 work complete - We reported on the new featues of Roller
3.0 in the last status report. Roller 3.0 is now in production at
several sites and is ready for release. We are currently testing RC4
and hoping to release
david reid wrote:
BTW, has anyone looked at the files I committed while at AC US?
I was wondering where the commit notices were.
I just found that no one was moderating the commit list. sigh I've
fixed that, and moderated through what was pending. Your commit notices
(and who knows how many
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Any official IPMC vote should occur on and be archived at one of
its two lists, private@ (for people-stuff) or general@, AFAICT.
Personally, I would prefer to have these votes on general@, but Geir expressed
his reasons in the absence of a rule to that effect. And
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Any official IPMC vote should occur on and be archived at one of
its two lists, private@ (for people-stuff) or general@, AFAICT.
Personally, I would prefer to have these votes on general@, but Geir
expressed his
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
701 - 800 of 1628 matches
Mail list logo
