Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be very noisy, indeed. Szre. Here are some stats from October (from message counts displayed at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com) struts tomcat commons user 3115 2908 375 dev 759 1131 2112 I guess you could remove half of struts user if we added a jakarta-friday list 8-) Seriously, combining the user lists is not desirable at all IMHO, as our users probably don't care too much for the projects they don't use. Let's look at the dev lists using nagoya's eyebrowse installation and looking at the number of mails in Nevember 2003: Alexandria 3 BCEL 12 BSF8 Cactus 173 Commons 2061 Commons-HTTP-Client 379 ECS0 Jetspeed 283 JMeter 276 Gump 292 (*) Log4J146 Lucene 164 ORO3 Pluto112 POI 213 Regexp21 Slide724 Struts 431 Taglibs 35 Tapestry 110 Tomcat 982 Turbine 271 Turbine-JCS 10 Velocity 244 I think there are more lists than that. (*) using MARC as Gump is not listed in eyebrowse. OK, the total is 6953, more than three times the traffic of commons-dev. This is unless we'd really split the lists into separate lists for bug reports, commits and ideas (I'm not sure I'd like that idea). Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic? Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In fact I didn't even know that this is a turbine sub-sub project for quite some time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's _not_ fold it into the commons list where a completely different culture exists compared to a normal project list. I'm pretty sure that this will scare JCS users away. I'm thinking that making it a direct Jakarta sub project starts to make more and more sense. I'd propose that we move JCS in this direction, if the JCS developers push for a 1.0 release inside turbine-jcs and we make the transition into a Jakarta project with this 1.0 release (which would IMHO a fine reason to do so). Regards Henning On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 17:16, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote: Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm for the Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than sandbox route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full sub-project. +1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied by a release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care). the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by folding the jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first. this would allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight. next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for the core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready, we'd update the commons website and officially add JCS to the commons. hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a community and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces. once the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of the commons. Else it would not be fair to many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been kept there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.). (just to set the record straight on commons-configuration) sandbox components are not allowed to have releases. one major factor when promotion (to the commons proper) is being consider is that a component is ready for a release (even if it's a 0.1 one). i now think that every component in commons proper needs a proper release of some kind so that other projects have the chance to depend on a released version. i'm not sure why eric hasn't started to push towards promotion for commons-configuration but it's possible that there's addition work that needs doing before commons-configuration is ready. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Außerdem können in Deutschland alle Englisch. [...] so entfällt die Notwendigkeit [...] Deutsch zu lernen. -- Johan Micoud auf die Frage warum er kein Deutsch spricht. (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,273205,00.html) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Am 08.12.2003 um 09:03 schrieb Stefan Bodewig: Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic? I think it was a little of both. HttpClient was and continues to be rather heavy in traffic for a commons component, so some started to complain. The developers were okay with splitting off the mailing list, so it happened. I think this was also due to HttpClient being backed by a community separate from the rest of the Commons (i.e. none of the HttpClient contributors is working on other Commons components, IIRC). In my opinion, HttpClient would deserve promotion out of Commons by now, but that's a different topic altogether :-) Cheers, Chris -- Christopher Lenz /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Sounds good. Less disruption on the way to a release would be best. Aaron -Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:22 AM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In fact I didn't even know that this is a turbine sub-sub project for quite some time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's _not_ fold it into the commons list where a completely different culture exists compared to a normal project list. I'm pretty sure that this will scare JCS users away. I'm thinking that making it a direct Jakarta sub project starts to make more and more sense. I'd propose that we move JCS in this direction, if the JCS developers push for a 1.0 release inside turbine-jcs and we make the transition into a Jakarta project with this 1.0 release (which would IMHO a fine reason to do so). Regards Henning On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 17:16, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote: Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm for the Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than sandbox route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full sub-project. +1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied by a release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care). the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by folding the jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first. this would allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight. next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for the core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready, we'd update the commons website and officially add JCS to the commons. hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a community and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces. once the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of the commons. Else it would not be fair to many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been kept there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.). (just to set the record straight on commons-configuration) sandbox components are not allowed to have releases. one major factor when promotion (to the commons proper) is being consider is that a component is ready for a release (even if it's a 0.1 one). i now think that every component in commons proper needs a proper release of some kind so that other projects have the chance to depend on a released version. i'm not sure why eric hasn't started to push towards promotion for commons-configuration but it's possible that there's addition work that needs doing before commons-configuration is ready. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Außerdem können in Deutschland alle Englisch. [...] so entfällt die Notwendigkeit [...] Deutsch zu lernen. -- Johan Micoud auf die Frage warum er kein Deutsch spricht. (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,273205,00.html) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
