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)
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?
>
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
Ted Husted wrote:
> 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
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 fu
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 jus
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, I
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) :
Let (a flattened)
commons become Jakarta..
Mvgr,
Martin
Ted Husted
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
cyc
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 p
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 i
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, Marti
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 proble
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
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 projec
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 projec
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
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 a
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
On 5/21/07, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi All
For the 3.0 release of POI, we followed the advice on voting on
artificats, the not the state of the tree. So, we used our ant script to
produce RC artificats, signed them, and placed them on people.apache.org
for review.
After the vote,
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 ou
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 additio
Here's a stupid but important question - what impact will all this have on the
future development of Tomcat?
Thanks,
Brian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 8:12 AM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: [P
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 ass
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 fur
On 5/21/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2/ It seems that we have a consensus forming around the idea that it
would be worthwhile retaining some resources in a low-maintenance way.
However its not clear where the ownership of these would lie.
Like anything else ASF, the "ownership" wi
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 wor
Nick Burch wrote:
> What do other people do about this for their releases, when voting on
> artificats? Do you do each build as if it was -FINAL (so that gets
> embeded into all the directory names etc), then rename the artificats
> for voting, or something else?
For Tomcat, every release candidat
On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed
2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed
3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed
So what's left in your opinion?
Work with the people who cast the deadlocking vetoes to resolve their
issues
For commons transaction I did exactly that.
Create/sign the RC as if it was the final release, but only put it on
temporary storage without notifying anyone external.
IMHO a RC is not meant to check for remaining bugs, but rather to see
if the distro looks ok, installs, etc.
That means the RC i
Hi All
For the 3.0 release of POI, we followed the advice on voting on
artificats, the not the state of the tree. So, we used our ant script to
produce RC artificats, signed them, and placed them on people.apache.org
for review.
After the vote, we renamed the files from -RC4- to -FINAL-, twe
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
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 th
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.
---
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, w
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 don't really see you advancing any
"arguments" about the future of Jak
Torsten Curdt wrote on Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:42 AM:
> so this thread died again without a conclusion or resulution.
because there seems none. 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.
[snip]
-
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 f
38 matches
Mail list logo
