Hello,
I'm agree, JMeter has acquired a very good maturity for his works (load
tests in particular) and a TLP will give more visibility to JMeter. It's
a good thing for all people who uses this tool to performs a load test.
I suppose that become a TLP need some works on a website/svn asf? I can
[please include general@ on all replies]
Thats reasonable, and I do think JMeter has enough going on to become a TLP.
Not to get too far ahead, but initial PMC would include active devs
ofcourse (sebb,milamber) and we should be able to round up enough
others with interest (olegk,rahul,bayard and
On 15.10.09 00:49, Henri Yandell wrote:
Slightly less tongue in cheek - maybe now is the time to move ORO,
Regexp and ECS over to Commons.
I thought, Attic was the correct place, at least for ECS?
Bye, Thomas.
-
To
Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
In my opinion, JMeter should really go top-level, but the community
has not yet (and may never) come to that conclusion.
JMeter used to be just at the brink of being viable as
a TLP. Mailing list traffic is stable and high, but the
number of active developers was
than any one of
the separate lists. However, development tends to be in spurts on
these lists and the probabilistic chances of more than a couple of
subproject spurts happening at the same time seems quite low. Overall,
combined traffic is not at all overpowering IMO.
* The proposal
be a separate
discussion after resolving his more narrowly scoped dev@/commits@
proposal. The only reason I haven't resigned from the Jakarta PMC
(after attic'ing ORO, now that there's an attic) is because JMeter
continues to use ORO and someone needs to be willing and able to
fix any issues
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Daniel F. Savarese d...@savarese.org wrote:
Although I think we need to discuss and resolve what the future of
Jakarta is to be, I agree with Rahul that it should be a separate
discussion after resolving his more narrowly scoped dev@/commits@
proposal
discussion after resolving his more narrowly scoped dev@/commits@
proposal. The only reason I haven't resigned from the Jakarta PMC
(after attic'ing ORO, now that there's an attic) is because JMeter
continues to use ORO and someone needs to be willing and able to
fix any issues that may arise
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Henri Yandell bay...@apache.org wrote:
Slightly less tongue in cheek - maybe now is the time to move ORO,
Regexp and ECS over to Commons.
I'm happy to help out with the move if desired. If active projects
then moving to a new site style and JIRA would come up,
Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
general@ as user@ to contain user traffic for all Jakarta projects,
retiring all the -user lists in the process. People can specify the
specific project referred to in the subject a la Commons
That may work for Commons, because it is the established
procedure there.
to discuss and resolve what the future of
Jakarta is to be, I agree with Rahul that it should be a separate
discussion after resolving his more narrowly scoped dev@/commits@
proposal. The only reason I haven't resigned from the Jakarta PMC
(after attic'ing ORO, now that there's an attic) is because JMeter
than a couple of
subproject spurts happening at the same time seems quite low. Overall,
combined traffic is not at all overpowering IMO.
* The proposal will include closing current dev lists and adding all
subscribers to the one new dev list. We'll post a heads up on these
lists before that. Throw
digging in the
archives, do you happen to have a pointer to a conclusive post / JIRA
on this?
(if nothing else, slide-dev folds into the proposal here, slide-user
fate can be discussed thereafter)
-Rahul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
-dev folds into the proposal here, slide-user
fate can be discussed thereafter)
-Rahul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Care to elaborate a bit?
I'd argue that for the people who care it's no big deal to subscribe
to the various lists. So tuning in is no problem, tuning out once
consolidated indeed is. It's an all-or-nothing. How is oversight
better when everyone (or at least all PMC members) are subscribed to
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@vafer.org wrote:
Care to elaborate a bit?
I'd argue that for the people who care it's no big deal to subscribe
to the various lists. So tuning in is no problem, tuning out once
consolidated indeed is. It's an all-or-nothing. How is
On 11/10/2009, Rahul Akolkar rahul.akol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@vafer.org wrote:
Care to elaborate a bit?
I'd argue that for the people who care it's no big deal to subscribe
to the various lists. So tuning in is no problem, tuning out
We currently have 8 active development lists at Jakarta, each devoted
to a subproject. I've been subscribed to all for a while and based on
my observations and the overall benefits of doing so, I think its time
to consolidate them into a single development list at Jakarta.
...
...@jakarta.apache.org; jmeter-...@jakarta.apache.org; oro-
d...@jakarta.apache.org; regexp-...@jakarta.apache.org; slide-
d...@jakarta.apache.org; Jakarta Project Management Committee List
Subject: [PROPOSAL] One development list
[Out of necessity, this is heavily cross-posted. Suggestion is to send
any replies
, development tends to be in spurts on
these lists and the probabilistic chances of more than a couple of
subproject spurts happening at the same time seems quite low. Overall,
combined traffic is not at all overpowering IMO.
* The proposal will include closing current dev lists and adding all
In message ce1f2ea80910091443t5cad1db0na0663c416cb83...@mail.gmail.com, Rahul
Akolkar writes:
We currently have 8 active development lists at Jakarta, each devoted
to a subproject. I've been subscribed to all for a while and based on
my observations and the overall benefits of doing so, I think
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Daniel F. Savarese d...@savarese.org wrote:
In message ce1f2ea80910091443t5cad1db0na0663c416cb83...@mail.gmail.com,
Rahul
Akolkar writes:
We currently have 8 active development lists at Jakarta, each devoted
to a subproject. I've been subscribed to all for a
On 10/10/2009, Rahul Akolkar rahul.akol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Daniel F. Savarese d...@savarese.org wrote:
In message ce1f2ea80910091443t5cad1db0na0663c416cb83...@mail.gmail.com,
Rahul
Akolkar writes:
We currently have 8 active development lists at
This is amazing. I agree with Craig on something almost completely.
Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 5/30/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/30/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/26/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ack in terms of driving a community away because
This is amazing. I agree with Craig on something almost completely.
Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 5/30/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/30/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/26/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ack in terms of driving a community away because
On 5/26/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ack in terms of driving a community away because it is unable to meet
our arbitrary criteria.
That sort of thinking just seems so Borg to me. It's another way of
saying that a software product only has value if its hosted by the
ASF.
If a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Henr
i Yandell writes:
Chiefly, we need to decide if we're sending the Commons proposal. The
We decided already to submit the Commons proposal by virtue of the vote
result. I suggest we uphold the current decision and submit the proposal
in order to make some
karma to all the
subprojects to all the Jakarta committers, in the style of the
Commons.
In other words, create a TLP, join the Commons, or become a commons.
One other alternative would be for the active committers to those
remaining subprojects to draft their own resolution proposal for
creating
be for the active committers to those
remaining subprojects to draft their own resolution proposal for
creating a new Jakarta PMC, and boot the rest of us out. :) Though, if
anyone wanted to make that happen, I'd suggest making it happen for
the June board meeting, to coincide with the Commons
On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, I object to the fact the it seems to be so difficult to escape Jakarta.
:) So far, it's been *much* less difficult than creating the Jakarta
Commons in the first place! Back in the day, we actually had a
separate mailing list
On 5/25/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, I object to the fact the it seems to be so difficult to escape
Jakarta.
:) So far, it's been *much* less difficult than creating the Jakarta
Commons in the first place! Back in the
To those trying to preserve Jakarta I say 'let go of Commons'. Don't abuse
Commons to try and save Jakarta. If the Jakarta name is worth saving, people
and community will form to save it. If not, then it will die. Thats normal
and natural.
Maybe not a reference to me, but in case it
- Original Message
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/22/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In summary:
a) I believe the status quo is not viable
b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two mismatched groups
My suggestion was to merge the Jakarta
the remaining sub-projects need to do something
similar - put together a TLP proposal - with the idea that they group
togther like Commons (single dev/user mailing list) to give each other
oversight.
Niall
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe
Martin van den Bemt wrote on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:16 AM:
That's quite problematic : Jakarta is responsible for
jakarta.apache.org, not commons, sharing that
responsibility will just complicate things a lot.
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though
repeating myself here) :
On 5/22/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) :
Let (a flattened)
commons become Jakarta..
I thought that that idea was unpopular with some commons commiters on this PMC?
d.
On 5/22/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/22/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) :
Let (a flattened)
commons become Jakarta..
I thought that that idea was unpopular with some commons
On 5/22/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Yes, of course, there are passionate believers in the development
of particular libraries. Are there enough to make a viable community
for *any* of the libraries on their own? Or enough that care about
the Commons ecosystem as a whole
- Original Message
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/22/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Yes, of course, there are passionate believers in the development
of particular libraries. Are there enough to make a viable community
for *any* of the libraries on
Hi Stephen,
Stephen Colebourne wrote on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:43 PM:
[snip]
In summary:
a) I believe the status quo is not viable
b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two
mismatched groups
c) I believe that commons is big enough and strong enough to be a TLP
So, I
On 5/22/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In summary:
a) I believe the status quo is not viable
b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two mismatched groups
My suggestion was to merge the Jakarta subprojects into the Commons,
not the other way around.
* The
J Aaron Farr wrote:
... cut ...
As for dormant code, leave it where it is. If we still have a few
committers working on it and making releases occasionally, then we'd
still need a functional PMC. Otherwise, if we get enough noise about
a subproject, it can be revived (perhaps with help from
On 5/21/07, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This thread has been more quiet than I expected.
I thought so too.
There are two points which I'd like to make from the things that have
been said so far,
1/ From Ted H. Whenever we foster healthy communities that create
great software, we
On 5/21/07, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This thread has been more quiet than I expected.
Actually, thinking about it, perhaps that's because we all think we
know where this is inevitably going and we're just waiting for it all
to settle out.
d.
My silence is because I think I made my preferred option quite clear way too
many times.
Mvgr,
Martin
Danny Angus wrote:
On 5/21/07, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This thread has been more quiet than I expected.
Actually, thinking about it, perhaps that's because we all think we
Hi Danny,
Danny Angus wrote on Monday, May 21, 2007 10:47 AM:
On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any attempt in any kind of direction has been vetoed down
and for me it is pointless to bring the same arguments again
in a new thread.
Jorg,
Searching through my mail I
of the
resolution, no reason to suppose this won't be resolved. the proposal
received -1's but the people who voted -1 should work with the
community to get their concerns resolved, not simply block all
progress.
d.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But to recap, we had
1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed
2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed
3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed
Each of those proposals could be voted down, but are not subject to
veto. In other
On 5/21/07, Rony G. Flatscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There may be many reasons why a project turned dormant: no interest
(dead technology), committers having gone astray, etc.
One reason that may be special is a project which got developed, is
used, but there is no reason to develop it
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone wants to turn Jakarta into a Java portal, then turn Jakarta
into a Java portal. Some of the codebases may still be under the
Jakarta PMC umbrella, but would have little effect on using the
Jakarta site as a portal to the ASF's Java
: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But to recap, we had
1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed
2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed
3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed
Each of those proposals could be voted down
None - Tomcat is its own TLP
-Tim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a stupid but important question - what impact will all this have on the
future development of Tomcat?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
On 5/21/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok Ownership is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being
disbanded who provides the oversight?
The same people who provide oversight for any ASF project: The people
doing the work.
If anyone wants Jakarta to be the ASF portal to all of our
Ted Husted wrote:
Worse case, the Commons group could always go with Apache Jakarta
Commons. No one has objected to the re-use of the word Jakarta, and
more than one person has affirmed that it could be used.
That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean no one
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok Ownership is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being
disbanded who provides the oversight?
The same people who provide oversight for any ASF project: The people
doing the work.
If anyone
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean no one
has
expressed objections (you even responded to those objections)
Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say
that the use of the
Danny Angus wrote:
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok Ownership is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being
disbanded who provides the oversight?
The same people who provide oversight for any ASF project: The people
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not just you :) It's just too early to do that at this stage, since if it
is just some
commits
as Teds says, it will be a dead horse. I don't need something formal or
something, but at
least get
some attention from the java
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to
include links to our other Java products that were never part of
Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news
feed. Open the door, and see if
Yep still feel that way. Projects that want to use the Jakarta name, should
just stay here till they
are the only one left and after that re-establish the Jakarta Project.
Mvgr,
Martin
Ted Husted wrote:
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That *you* don't see a problem in
Ted Husted wrote:
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not just you :) It's just too early to do that at this stage,
since if it is just some
commits
as Teds says, it will be a dead horse. I don't need something formal
or something, but at
least get
some
What if the proposal were to create the TLP for the purpose of
reporting directly to the board, but nothing else changed? Would the
project name Apache Jakarta Commons still be a problem for you if
the physical infrastructure remained here, under the Jakarta
hostname?
-Ted.
On 5/21/07, Martin
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to
include links to our other Java products that were never part of
Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products
One link to a separate page isn't a problem, since I prefer that no major
changes happen to the main
site at this stage.
Currently I am pretty much dedicated in keeping Jakarta as a brand. And when
that time comes to
worry about that, I'll work with the people who still have the itch and the
Husted wrote:
What if the proposal were to create the TLP for the purpose of
reporting directly to the board, but nothing else changed? Would the
project name Apache Jakarta Commons still be a problem for you if
the physical infrastructure remained here, under the Jakarta
hostname?
-Ted.
On 5
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One link to a separate page isn't a problem, since I prefer that no major
changes happen
to the main site at this stage.
Currently I am pretty much dedicated in keeping Jakarta as a brand. And when
that time
comes to worry about that,
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) :
Let (a
flattened) commons become Jakarta..
Then why the concern about the use of Apache Jakarta Commons as a project name?
When the time comes, we could just
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) :
Let (a
flattened) commons become Jakarta..
Actually, it might be helpful if you repeated yourself in full,
Flattened means : jakarta.apache.org/commons becomes jakarta.apache.org :)
Mvgr,
Martin
Ted Husted wrote:
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating
myself here) :
Ted Husted wrote:
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself
here) : Let (a
flattened) commons become Jakarta..
Then why the concern about the use of Apache Jakarta Commons as a
project name?
When the
Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta
This thread has been more quiet than I expected. A couple of quick
thoughts:
Henri and Henning seem to have the same
On 5/15/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and
closure of the project?
Pro - Draws a line under the reorg effort which has gone on for 3 or
4 *years*.
Con - Removes the remaining tangible historic links between former
so this thread died again without a conclusion or resulution.
My take with as few words as possible:
* push for active project to go TLP
* jakarta.apache.org - the portal to all java projects at apache.
Just a shell - but let's keep the brand. Not necessarily a PMC
required. (Although a
Hi,
Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta.
I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about
that future before we can fully resolve the commons TLP issues.
0/ Do we agree that the
On 5/15/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta.
I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about
that future before we can fully resolve
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 10:22 +0100, Danny Angus wrote:
0/ - Dismember the current Jakarta PMC - +1
1/ - Yes, preserve the brand - +1000
2/ - No. The commons PMC will run the commons project. A possible
Jakarta PMC will not have the attention that might be needed. - -1
3/ - -1 on the PRC. They
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:56 +0200, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 10:22 +0100, Danny Angus wrote:
0/ - Dismember the current Jakarta PMC - +1
1/ - Yes, preserve the brand - +1000
2/ - No. The commons PMC will run the commons project. A possible
Jakarta PMC will not
On 5/15/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta.
I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about
that future before we can fully resolve
Turbine vote is finished and we are ready to go. Our TLP proposal is on
the Turbine Wiki, it is the same as the template (except that we have a
single superflous is in it. Everyone who finds it, can keep it).
POI vote is still running AFAIK.
So please, add the Turbine TLP proposal to the board
will that be cutting it a bit fine?
- Have all people added their name to the TLP proposal ?
I believe we have everyone on our list
- Is the proposal setup according to subproject-tlp-resolution.txt
It almost was... I've attached an updated version, which has the required
few tweaks made
) and gives us a better time-line to help out with moving things
over, set up redirects, etc..
There are a couple of things I like to see (re) checked :
- Have all people added their name to the TLP proposal ?
- Is the proposal setup according to
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board
On 4/9/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm definitely interested. BeanUtils tries to do too
many things in one
lib, and besides it is really ugly internally. So
something like Morph
would be very useful to have.
To be honest, Morph
here. Unless I hear differently, I'll assume
that's
lazy [-0]s all around and let the matter drop.
Thanks,
Matt
--- Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Morph's incubation proposal follows, sent here
first
in an effort to gain the sponsorship of Jakarta,
and
possibly
lazy [-0]s all around and let the matter drop.
Thanks,
Matt
--- Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Morph's incubation proposal follows, sent here first
in an effort to gain the sponsorship of Jakarta, and
possibly to attract mentors as well. :) Thanks!
Morph defines
wanted to confirm the complete lack of interest
here. Unless I hear differently, I'll assume that's
lazy [-0]s all around and let the matter drop.
Thanks,
Matt
--- Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Morph's incubation proposal follows, sent here first
in an effort to gain the sponsorship
Just wanted to confirm the complete lack of interest
here. Unless I hear differently, I'll assume that's
lazy [-0]s all around and let the matter drop.
Thanks,
Matt
--- Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Morph's incubation proposal follows, sent here first
in an effort to gain
Morph's incubation proposal follows, sent here first
in an effort to gain the sponsorship of Jakarta, and
possibly to attract mentors as well. :) Thanks!
Morph defines a comprehensive API for performing
object-to-object conversions in
Java.
PROPOSAL
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE
As information
On 04/03/07, Rainer Klute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel F. Savarese schrieb:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew C. Oliver writes:
lists. (If you disagree look at the list archive for
each over the last 6 months and see if you REALLY disagree in more than
THEORY).
At least for oro,
Rainer Klute wrote on Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:49 AM:
Daniel F. Savarese schrieb:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew C. Oliver writes:
lists. (If you disagree look at the list archive for
each over the last 6 months and see if you REALLY disagree in more
than THEORY).
At least for
Hi everyone,
For various reasons there are a couple of projects at Jakarta that currently
don't have any
development community. I like these projects to have dev discussion move to
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
so it is easier for us to give oversight and guide newbies to learn the Apache
way.
The
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Martin van den Bemt writes:
The strength of this list should be is that with a lot of hands the chance tha
t nothing happens when
there is activity is minimized. If someone has an hour to spare, it could very
well be useful to
apply a patch and mentor people.
Vadim
I think it is a bad idea. Either a project is alive or it is dead and
most of the dead are not coming back. The site, the project and
everything else should reflect this.
I suggest that:
1. ECS
2. ORO
3. Regexp
4. Alexandria (already does basically)
all have a page that looks like this
We aren't related, but I agree with Andy.
Michael Oliver
-Original Message-
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 3:17 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Create [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailinglist..
I think it is a bad idea
Whoa...my uncle is back from the dead.
-Andy
Michael Oliver wrote:
We aren't related, but I agree with Andy.
Michael Oliver
-Original Message-
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 3:17 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I think it is a bad idea. Either a project is alive or it is dead and
most of the dead are not coming back. The site, the project and
everything else should reflect this.
I suggest that:
1. ECS
2. ORO
3. Regexp
4. Alexandria (already does basically)
Was
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew C. Oliver writes:
lists. (If you disagree look at the list archive for
each over the last 6 months and see if you REALLY disagree in more than
THEORY).
At least for oro, some Linux distributions continue to ship it as part of
their core packages. For
Daniel F. Savarese schrieb:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew C. Oliver writes:
lists. (If you disagree look at the list archive for
each over the last 6 months and see if you REALLY disagree in more than
THEORY).
At least for oro, some Linux distributions continue to ship it
details about this PROPOSAL and how it
might fit in with Apache:
Meritocracy, Community:
So far, yes, it's just been me committing whenever I like. This has
been convenient to try and get the library into a useable state. I
think the library has good coherency
Julius Davies wrote:
Oh, one final note. If this gets sandboxed, I don't need to be a
committer at this time. I'm more than happy to just email patches.
Don't worry, David. I am sure you have plenty of fans here who will be
more than happy to vote for you as a committer!
client.addTrustMaterial( new TrustMaterial( /path/to/cert.pem ) );
client.setKeyMaterial( new KeyMaterial( /path/to/key.pem,
/path/to/certs.pem, secret.toCharArray() ) );
That's the library! Now some details about this PROPOSAL and how it
might fit in with Apache:
Meritocracy, Community
1 - 100 of 1071 matches
Mail list logo
