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
On 5/25/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4) Goto code.google. Ack :(
I wouldn't discount GoogleCode (or Java.net or SourceForge or
CodeHaus). Right now, there's a GoogleCode site that I use everyday,
and it's been utterly reliable. There's features I miss, but the UI is
so
On 5/26/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/25/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4) Goto code.google. Ack :(
I wouldn't discount GoogleCode (or Java.net or SourceForge or
CodeHaus). Right now, there's a GoogleCode site that I use everyday,
and it's been utterly reliable.
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
On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
54 matches
Mail list logo
