synapse
http://incubator.apache.org/synapse/download.cgi
is being mirrored.
Incubator code should not be on www.apache.org/dist. Only official ASF
releases are permitted to be there. Our stuff should be under
people.apache.org/dist/incubator/${podling}.
Remember: we're not trying to make
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Noel J Bergman wrote:
Most users should not be using Incubator code. Only those who are
committed
and willing to trust that the project will do well here and eventually
become an ASF project.
Keep in mind that I am referring to code in that is in, and being
Dion,
What point is there in having something incubated if there are no users?
We're talking about a balance, and most specifically about ensuring that
only users who have made a specific and informed decision are using the code
while it is still in the Incubator. The Apache brand has a value
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
we have been told that -incubating is nothing more then a
tag that the project is in the incubator and does not at
all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness
for production use
It is not a comment on the code quality at all, but it is a comment on
whether
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
It's also clear at least to me that they don't want any input or
rather interference in matters technical either (at least learn
from our mistakes!), at least till the current merger is done by
which time its too late to align some of the efforts with ongoing
work in
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
It's pretty clear from all the conversations during Apachecon that
folks don't believe in people who are wearing their Apache hats or
at least us when we wear one.
Let's be fair about it. Without naming names, we all know that the same
concern Dims raises above
Brian McCallister wrote:
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
In general, you should not have to ask what someone who's already
an ASF committer what his/her interest is in joining an incubator
project. In this particular case isn't the relationship/interest
abundantly clear?
That said I want
Ian Holsman wrote:
how hard would it be for the AMQP protocol to be implemented
inside/on top of ActiveMQ ?
The whole point is for the AMQP *protocol* to be ubiquitous across all
messaging engines, not just one implementation of one API. Which implies
that, yes, they would like for it to be
This has been a busy month for the Incubator PMC, considering a number of
new submissions, such as:
CeltixFire - a multiple vendor submission for a SOA platform
Blaze - a proposed standard and set of implementations for messaging
middleware interop
Heraldry - an identity project
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
i've run into a problem. [Roles_and_Responsibilities.html] is not
consistent with [Incubation_Policy.html]
roles states champions can be officers or members whereas policy
implies only members.
From my perspective, these are all vestiges of early Incubator policy
Roy,
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
committership. And the justification for the first part seemed to be making
sure that a company could not start with a lot of its own people, and keep
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Personally, yes, I feel this should apply to mentors as well.
The Mentors are all Incubator PMC members, and the Incubator PMC as a whole
oversees all Incubator projects. Every Incubator PMC member has an equal
binding vote on every Incubator matter, and ought to be able
Ian Holsman wrote:
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project) but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
If you accept that a Mentor is just a name for an Incubator PMC member who
is active in the project
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Sure, but I think it should be made clear to mentors that the fact
that nothing is preventing them from committing changes to the project
they mentor doesn't mean that they should do so with abandon.
Does my response to Martin sufficiently reflect your view?
---
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
PPMC can oversee the process and should be able to veto proposed
committers without sufficient earned karma, but I don't see the
downsides of self-government of the incubating project.
The PPMC *is* the self-governing body for the Incubating project. Which is
why I
Dan Diephouse wrote:
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
I'd like to join the PPMC too as an interested party observer.
I will poke my nose in as a mentor when possible but don't
have the cycles to commit to it.
While I value your feedback and input, if you don't have enough time, I
don't
Mladen Turk wrote:
So you wouldn't mind of mine humble non binding -1
vote. Like said, I don't have nothing against
that project, but like in many things in life
even the ASF seems to behave in the spirit of:
Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.
That's very sad :(
Context? To what double
Craig Russell wrote:
To get very specific, I understand that posting insults on Apache
mailing lists is forbidden.
Correct.
But are you also saying that we expect him to:
no longer post insults regarding any topic on bileblog, or
No, I am not saying that. Personally, I am not narcissistic
Jason,
I am +1 for the project, overall.
I do suggest that we start out with the PPMC of you and the other Mentors,
have you bring Dan and other appropriate people onto the PMC as your first
order of business, and them go about selecting Committers. From what I
recall at ApacheCon, there was
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I do suggest that we start out with the PPMC of you and the other Mentors,
have you bring Dan and other appropriate people onto the PMC [...]
sigh Typo. Hopefully that was obvious. Meant to say PPMC.
--- Noel
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
But are you also saying that we expect him to:
no longer post insults regarding any topic on bileblog, or
no longer post insults regarding any Apache project on bileblog, or
no longer post insults regarding any Apache committer on
Ian Holsman wrote:
isn't Active MQ an alternative to Blaze/AMQP ?
If this project was accepted would Apache have *2* different
messaging servers?
Ant and Maven? Axis2 and XFire? GUMP and Maven Continuum?
which use different protocols ?
Blaze is about only AMQP, a proposed standard for
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Your license and any rights under this Agreement will terminate
immediately without notice from any Author if you bring any
claim, suit, demand, or action related to the Advanced Messaging
Queue Protocol Specification against any Author. Upon termination,
you shall
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
I didn't know that this list is only for projects that don't have a 3
month collective memory...
I suspect that he was making a bit of a joke, along the lines of C'mon
folks, how hard is it to remember to get your [EMAIL PROTECTED] report in every
quarter?!
we
Roy,
Thanks. So let's clarify some of these issues (out of order from your
reply).
[The need for a Mentor to be an ASF Member was] imposed by
no other agency than the Incubator PMC, itself.
A need imposed by the board when it created the Incubator with a given
purpose that cannot be
For prior discussion, see the thread
[doc] Roles and Responsibilities Update Needed
in our archives.
Based upon various discussions we have had lately, I am putting for the
following as what I consider a reasonable attempt to build a consensus:
An Incubator Project SHOULD have at least
Dave,
Sending reminders to me for the Incubator PMC report isn't terribly helpful,
since we report every month. But what WOULD help would be if you could
generate reports for all of our projects.
See http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReportingSchedule, but it is just like
normal Board reports.
We have several projects that appear to be dormant, so let's discuss what
that means in terms of operational mechanics.
I'd suggest that the PMC declare a project as dormant, with the effect being
that we set the SVN ACL to read-only. If people want to wake the project
up, we can change the ACL.
Garrett Rooney wrote:
FWIW, It's merely the lack of a clue as to what needs to be changed
that's kept me from closing down lucene4c.
That, and Agila and a couple of others, prompted my e-mail.
I'd suggest that the PMC declare a project as dormant, with the effect
being
that we set the
Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't mean people need to be an ASF member to be involved in
incubation of a project
Goes without saying. :-) More on the rest in a bit.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe,
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Membership is a half-way point? What's the full distance? ;-)
I'll let you know when I get there.
According to some, disagreeing with Roy is the obligatory Right of Passage.
;-)
But I agree with you: It is absolute nonsense to have someone
Bruce Snyder wrote:
What do you mean fix the doc? Is it not the policy that mentors be
members? I've seen and been involved in discussions where this was
used as a reason that non-members could not be mentors of an
incubating project.
Mentors are (MUST BE) Incubator PMC Members. ASF Members
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Could someone point to the post that would explain how it should be fixed?
To quote myself, but this is hardly the first time it has come up:
---
Mentors are (MUST BE) Incubator PMC Members. ASF Members are automatically
eligible for PMC membership; non-Members may be
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It is absolute nonsense to have someone guiding newbies through
the ASF process when they haven't even made it to the halfway
point themselves.
Membership is a half-way point? What's the full distance? ;-)
But I agree with you: It is absolute nonsense to have someone
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
This addresses my concern about formally identifying the mentor who is
taking the key responsibility for the podling (rather than three
rarely available mentors with no one of them taking responsibility).
The problem isn't the lack of a single mentor, it is the failing of
Kenneth Tam wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html
A Mentor is a role undertaken by a permanent member of the Apache
Software Foundation and is chosen by the Sponsor to actively lead in
the discharge of their duties (listed above).
We still haven't
Ted Leung wrote:
I don't know that I agree completely with you about the role of PMC
Chairs - sometimes a good PMC chair helps a project quite a bit
As the Chair? Or as a recognized leader by his or her peers based upon the
weight of experience and ideas, rather than the official role?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
As an aside, I'm also a bit befuddled at why MINA lives in the
Directory project - that just seems a bit odd. =)
It is there because MINA was written to implement ApacheDS. It is the ...
third, I believe ... generation I/O framework used in that project.
And, yes,
robert burrell donkin wrote:
i've been wondering whether the answer may be to have a chair for each
ppmc
analogous to the role of the pmc chair.
I strongly disagree.
Although history documents an unfortunately strong human tendency towards
delegating to a hierarchical authority, the ASF
robert burrell donkin wrote:
is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I wouldn't do it over a week, especially a long weekend. And if very few
PMC members have voted, I might post a reminder to vote rather than close a
vote with a minimum of voters.
--- Noel
+1
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ted Leung wrote:
In this case, we had several weeks of discussion on Heraldry,
including some F2F conversations at ApacheCon EU, so 72 hours
doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Nor me.
I guess the bigger question is whether we ought to change the
72 hour guideline for the foundation as a
Ted Leung wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We should use our judgment to ensure a collaborative environment
without undue overhead. But it would be unfair, for example, to
deliberately hold a vote when someone whom you know is opposed
is going to be off-line.
I was just asking
I didn't have a problem with Heraldry, nor do I care if its name is changed.
But although Ibid may have a good geeky literary reference, I concur that
it sounds like an eBay interface for an iPAQ or iPod.
--- Noel
-
To
Paul,
Before I vote, I'd like to ask you a community related question.
Looking at the June mail archives for Synapse (actually, I looked at other
months as well), I see a lot of commits but very little discussion. Yes,
some, but not much. More in May than in June, but a downtrend in mailing
David Recordon wrote:
This is a proposal to create a project within the Apache Software
Foundation to develop technologies around the emerging user-centric
identity space.
The project would start with [Yadis, OpenID, OSIS]
Yadis is currently being standardized within OASIS as part of the
A relatively quiet month on the Incubator front.
Projects continue to settle into the task of Incubation. We are currently
engaged in a doc-a-thon at ApacheCon EU to polish the documentation for
our processes and policies.
An article discussing the Incubator was vetted by the PRC, and should be
Andy,
Thank you for your message.
In addition to Leo's comments, please keep in mind that code licensed under the
Apache License, cannot be withdrawn from that license. You need not continue
work on your project here, and since the Kabuki community had not gotten
started, I don't know if
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
IMHO, all of the discussions, especially this early on, should be
happening
on the mailing lists, to encourage more people to participate, and thus
help
grow the community.
+1 on that.
The use of e-mail as the primary means for communication is part of ASF
Hiram Chirino wrote:
As I see it, it comes down to a choice of having the user configure
his pom with either
1) an artifact id or group id or version id that
includes incubator in it.
or
2) a repository id that include incubator in it.
Or, as I see it, both. Since the artifacts are
The repository folks have thus far created several repositories:
http://www.apache.org/dist/java-repository/
http://www.apache.org/dist/maven-repository/
http://people.apache.org/repository/
Other than filenames, which are meaningless when the artifacts are
transparently downloaded by
The reporting schedule is at
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReportingSchedule, so that everyone knows
for which months their report is due. PLEASE NOTE: all new projects must
also report for the first three months of Incubation. This is not reflected
on the posted schedule.
Mentors: as new
It is that time again. Please have your reports posted to
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/June2006
by Sunday afternoon AT THE LATEST. Please do not be late. I will not be
able to handle last minute additions.
--- Noel
in [the JSF API] there are lots of classes with lots of code and logic.
Not uncommon, which is why I generally consider an API project to be a bit
of a waste. Instead, projects that implement specifications should populate
the standards part of http://projects.apache.org:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Passed with +1's from dims, jim, pzf, stoddard, jstrachan and no -1's.
Please check with Cliff that your understanding regarding Rhino distribution
as you explained it to Bill's objection is correct. Not to hold up the
release, since you've documented the license and are
what was wrong with Atomate? I really liked that one.
So did I, actually. Not that I have a horse in this race.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick Lothian wrote:
There's also Jakarta FeedParser, which has an Atom parser.
Also the ROME project (http://rome.dev.java.net/) has been debating
requesting incubation at Apache for quite a long time. We've got an
Atom parser, too.
IIRC, FeedParser is languishing for need of a community.
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/May2006
Working on project documentation and logistics for using toolkit hosted at
Apache.
Please elaborate.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/May2006
Is Discussions on what would make a good milestone release all that should
be said for this project?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
Don't forget that although this may be about Atoms, there is Wave-Particle
duality, so these things are also waves, which makes for interesting
imagery, since they propogate as a wave front across the web.
--- Noel
-
To
Leo Simons wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
if you are having a vote, just let the rest of the PMC know
about it. We don't vote in dark corners
The PMC is collectively responsible for all projects under
Incubation, and ought to be kept aware of what is happening.
Do you have a concern
Bruce Snyder wrote:
New projects report every month for their first quarter,
established ones once per quarter.
Is this documented somewhere? What is considered a new project?
Probably not, and we've only recently started asking projects to do it, so
all others would be grandfathered in.
My understanding is that the Apache incubator accepts outside
projects if they are already in a working shape and have a
developer and user community around them
The Incubator accepts projects if our Members commit to helping to mentor
them. No Member support, no project. Member support,
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Can we take it this is approved and let them move on to the next step?
As of tonight, Geir says that he's setting up the Infrastructure and STATUS
file.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe,
Dave Johnson wrote:
We've gone through 5 release candidates and are ready to release
Roller 2.2-incubating.
next time [we'll] use [the] official [disclaimer] wording.
As per
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Branding, you
need to either request the PMC to approve
Ken wrote:
[I don't see] any notice concerning [bundled jar] IP and
licensing terms. There is no NOTICE file. Some of these
jars are apparently licensed under CPL or CDDL, which most
definitely cannot be bundled without clear notice.
- -1, at least until a proper and complete NOTICE file
James Strachan wrote:
FWIW now that the ActiveMQ build is fixed it should never again fail
these incubator release requirements - though it did take quite a few
attempts to get there. This is the first attempt at a milestone
release of ServiceMix so its hardly surprising that one little thing
Not too much to report this month, other than projects settling into the
task of Incubation.
It appears that Felix may apply for TLP status at the May Board meeting.
--- Noel
--
ActiveMQ
The ActiveMQ project is progressing toward graduation
+1
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Does the remaining ip loop to close involve filling out the ip clearance
template at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html ? This
is counter intuitive to me because that page says This form is not for
new projects.
Because it should be a SUBSET of the
http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0604L=jini-usersF=S=P=4029
Yes. Sun is quite serious about proposing JINI to go through Incubation.
We should hear from them very soon, but in the meantime, if there are some
folks who would like to help Mentor the project, please let the PMC know.
See: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2006
*STILL* waiting to hear from ADF Faces, Agila, AltRMI, Felix, Harmony,
Kabuki, and WebWork 2.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
Erik,
I'll add a +1. And please be sure to submit the report for inclusion this
month.
For my information, I notice that the STATUS file says that this is from the
DotLucene project on SourceForge. How are things going with IP clearance?
And will this web site: http://www.dotlucene.net/ be
Yoav,
I've added my recollections for projects I'm involved with
Appreciated. Are they being discussed on each project's list(s)?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
the
documentations myself.
As for the earlier project going closed-source, that was the case with 1.2.
However, since I have taken over stating with 1.3 and now that Lucene.Net is
on ASF, I don't see it gong back to closed-source any more.
Regards,
-- George
-Original Message-
From: Noel J
Erik Hatcher wrote:
George Aroush wrote:
Btw, Lucene.Net is been referred to as Lucene.Net and not
Lucene.NET Noel suggested so some time ago to prevent any
legal issues with Microsoft.
I did?
Actually, I wonder how .NET is permitted to be a trademark, considering the
far older .net
Don Brown wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
To be clear, are you indicating that the copyright notice is simply
entirely false, the notice was erroneously placed, and that the
named entity has no copyright on the code?
That is my understanding, yes. Simply a misconfiguration of IDEA
Yo, guys ... March != April!
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would be +1, but first I want to know if
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/log4net.html is up-to-date.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
James Strachan wrote:
Release tarball:
http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0-RC2/distributions/
Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
As per the latter:
* the release archive MUST contain the
I have prepared a Wiki page to help prepare this month's board report.
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2006
Please edit your section this week. The board calendar is a bit odd this
month, but I have dental surgery on Monday, and don't know how useful I
will be next week.
Every project
Yes, it appears so from the trademark-assigns.txt file. On or before February
18th.
--- Noel
-Original Message-
From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:31
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: AcitveMQ and ServiceMix trademark
Don,
To be clear, are you indicating that the copyright notice is simply entirely
false, the notice was erroneously placed, and that the named entity has no
copyright on the code?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
James Strachan wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
INFO BrokerService - For help or more
information please see: http://www.logicblaze.com
I believe that James' comment confirms that this was an oversight, and that
they realize that people should be refered to the ASF home
Martin,
There appears to be an error in the status file: a 2004 that should be a
2005. Total nitpick, but please correct when updating the file.
Other than that, seems fine.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
robert burrell donkin asked:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
What we'll probably do is run it like we're running Harmony.
The list of committers on the proposal are the people we
expect to show up, but we won't be creating accounts by
default - we'll need to have each person say yes, I'm ready
Yoav Shapira wrote:
I actually tend to agree with Ken on these things
Meritocracy *at the ASF* is a significant point.
And so staying in the Incubator long enough for people to have a sense of
confidence regarding the community makes sense to me. As I see it, moving a
project before having
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
James Strachan wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
I know for a fact that WADI, ActiveIO and Trifork guys have
been talking about coming up with a single framework for IO.
James hinted in a prev message and there have been some
references in emails on [EMAIL
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
Which part of Personally, I believe wasn't clear? ;-)
What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella
is a gray area.
I've posted *my* first
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
community.
Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to see a
number of those projects at the ASF.
The vision was to
James Strachan wrote:
What other issues are there?
A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
community. Such things
robert burrell donkin wrote:
Ken wrote:
I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
my first pass definition is quite different:
an umbrella is a project where there is the legal and formal
organization
Ken wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Considering that both ActiveMQ and ServiceMix really ought to be
targeting TLP status, learning to do this is important.
That's a bit much, Noel. Where they end up is primarily
their own concern -- and not determined until graduation
anyway.
Sorry
Henri Yandell wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation
(although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and
they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but
from the Foundation/Board's
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
long way to go before it's
David Blevins wrote:
Lots of good stuff, thanks. :-)
If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good
goal eventually.
We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
the past two plus
Hiram Chirino wrote:
If the ActiveMQ / ServiceMix community do decide to go under some
other TLP, I'm sure it would not take long for the active
participants of the community to asked to Join the TLP's PMC.
I would certainly hope that they would want to be, yes. Hence ...
I believe that
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I do feel that some of it does come down to being able to
convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that
the community really does get it regarding ASF principles
and practices.
There are a number of definitions for the word subjective.
An operational
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and
Geronimo
PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see
communities
having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
community. Such things are subjective, and
Folks,
Lately, the tide of e-mail cc'd to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has risen to
rather large proportions. Such e-mail is rarely necessary.
For example, it is not necessary to e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] *and* [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
It is not necessary to e-mail some public list, e.g.,
dev@geronimo.apache.org
901 - 1000 of 1628 matches
Mail list logo
