Hi Adriano and folks,
I am very happy with all things that I read on this email.
These details about the project make all difference on my vision.
Actually I have been waiting for something like this.
I'd like to give my 2 cents about the Apache Project namespace.
On my job, we use many platforms
Hello Francesco!
Thanks for your input!
>> 1 - Create the Umit Project Organization officialy, have a HQ, address,
>> registers, etc.
>> 2 - Create a business model to generate income and afford Umit Project
>> Organization growth.
>
> I think that everyone here want to know more information abou
Thanks for this email that's clarifying ideas behind the restructuring.
I'm very excited about the organization idea but I have some points to expose:
2009/5/4 Adriano Monteiro Marques :
> Hello Folks,
>
> This morning, after reading all the e-mails concerning this matter, I just
> realized that w
Hi all,
I totally support the whole idea. That's what I'm standing for... Go
Umit Project, Go!
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Luis A. Bastiao Silva
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I read all your long email with attention, and I really appreciate.
> Thanks for become it clear. :)
>
> And I'm also agree wit
Hello,
I read all your long email with attention, and I really appreciate.
Thanks for become it clear. :)
And I'm also agree with it.
João: yes it is Our goals and I'm glad that you solved all issues ;)
Best Regards,
--
Luís A. Bastião Silva
Hello João!
> No objections. I understand all your (or, better say, our) goals. Now,
> I think there is no divergent thoughts about Zion, specifically.
> Zion's branch is already using the namespace proposed by you and Luis
> and I'm agree with that. Congratulations, great e-mail.
Thanks for your
Hi Adriano.
No objections. I understand all your (or, better say, our) goals. Now,
I think there is no divergent thoughts about Zion, specifically.
Zion's branch is already using the namespace proposed by you and Luis
and I'm agree with that. Congratulations, great e-mail.
Att, João Medeiros.
PS
Hello Folks,
This morning, after reading all the e-mails concerning this matter, I
just realized that we're all (including myself) misunderstanding some
basic concepts. First, I would like to state that Umit != Umit
Project, and I would like to ask everyone to make that clear when
writing
Hi folks,
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Luis A. Bastiao Silva
wrote:
[cut]
> Well you didn't reply to umit-devel, but Adriano already answered.
> But I get your point, you said that it is a wrong design. But if you're
> using:
> umitproject.umit
> umitproject.pm
For me this structure it's fi
Hello Francesco,
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Francesco Piccinno wrote:
> 2009/5/3 Rodolfo S. Carvalho :
> > Sorry, I needed to ask this e-mail.
> >
> > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Bartosz SKOWRON
> wrote:
> >> Please stop this thread. Please drop this idea. As you see, some of
> >> use
2009/5/3 Rodolfo S. Carvalho :
> Sorry, I needed to ask this e-mail.
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Bartosz SKOWRON wrote:
>> Please stop this thread. Please drop this idea. As you see, some of
>> use don't agree with this idea. Moreover, this idea impacts on our
>> work. I'm talking about PM
Sorry, I needed to ask this e-mail.
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Bartosz SKOWRON wrote:
> Please stop this thread. Please drop this idea. As you see, some of
> use don't agree with this idea. Moreover, this idea impacts on our
> work. I'm talking about PM/UMPA. So, sorry but me and Francesco a
Please stop this thread. Please drop this idea. As you see, some of
use don't agree with this idea. Moreover, this idea impacts on our
work. I'm talking about PM/UMPA. So, sorry but me and Francesco are
the closest to this code and we know a bit more about an architecture
of this.
I remember that
Hello Bart!
>> Oops! Gtk was created before gnome, and Qt before KDE.
>
> And you really think that if it wouldn't be this way, they will be
> under KDE/GNOME? If so, you are wrong. And my close friend (best man
> on my sister's wedding) Zack Rusin is (or was) general director of KDE
> for years a
Hello,
Ok. May be I don't know much about another organizations. At least I know
the scope of Umit Project:
Umit Project contains:
Umit, PacketManipulator, UMPA, UmitWeb, UmitBluetooth, etc.
Is it true, right?
*Hypothetically*, Umit Project is a good name to a package, so:
umitproject.umit.co
> Yeah btw i've the same structure in PM as well PM.Core and PM.Gui. But
> are we creating a namespace? or simply collating software with no
> cares about the general structure?
> I mean it's reasonable to have
>
> org or yournamespacehere
> | -> PM
> | -> Gui
> | -> Core
> | -> umit
> | ->
Hello Bartosz,
> please don't take these words personally, i know that some of them may
> sound a bit bitter.
Don't worry pal ;-). I would say the same for all I write, because I
don't master english and somethings often sound more harsh than I
would like it to be.
> Saying that user has to add
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Rodolfo S. Carvalho
wrote:
> Oops! Gtk was created before gnome, and Qt before KDE.
And you really think that if it wouldn't be this way, they will be
under KDE/GNOME? If so, you are wrong. And my close friend (best man
on my sister's wedding) Zack Rusin is (or wa
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Bartosz SKOWRON wrote:
> Hello,
> please don't take these words personally, i know that some of them may
> sound a bit bitter.
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Adriano Marques wrote:
>
>> By saying that, Luis meant that it will be possible to distribute UMPA
>>
Hello João,
> This makes sense. Yes. Take a look at umit dir on trunk:
>
> drwxr-xr-x 4 ignotus users 4096 2009-04-22 09:52 core/
> drwxr-xr-x 4 ignotus users 4096 2009-04-22 09:52 db/
> drwxr-xr-x 4 ignotus users 4096 2009-04-29 00:54 gui/
> drwxr-xr-x 5 ignotus users 4096 2009-04-22
Hello Francesco!
> IMHO this is a wrong desing proposal. Packing everything under umit is
> a wrong thing to do.
> And if everything should be packed under the organization namespace
> also the 'umit' should be moved inside this. Than we'll have umit.umit
> :P
I understand your concerns. But, we
Hi folks!
2009/5/2 Francesco Piccinno :
> Probably this fits for your needs, because you are working directly
> with umit codebase. But PM and UMPA don't need umit classes or source
> code and viceversa. I don't know the situation for other projects.
I think we should follow the naming standard p
2009/5/2 Francesco Piccinno :
> Probably this fits for your needs, because you are working directly
> with umit codebase. But PM and UMPA don't need umit classes or source
> code and viceversa. I don't know the situation for other projects.
That's what I tried to said as well. +1
Hello,
please don't take these words personally, i know that some of them may
sound a bit bitter.
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Adriano Marques wrote:
> By saying that, Luis meant that it will be possible to distribute UMPA
> as a separate package for others to use just as you currently do. Th
Probably this fits for your needs, because you are working directly
with umit codebase. But PM and UMPA don't need umit classes or source
code and viceversa. I don't know the situation for other projects.
2009/5/2 João Medeiros :
> Hi all.
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Francesco Piccinno
>
Hi all.
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Francesco Piccinno wrote:
> IMHO this is a wrong design proposal. Packing everything under umit is
> a wrong thing to do.
> And if everything should be packed under the organization namespace
> also the 'umit' should be moved inside this. Than we'll have um
2009/5/2 Adriano Marques :
> Hello Bart!
>
> Thanks for your input, and I understand your concerns. Please, read my
> remarks in line.
>
>>> It will be happen with UMPA, PacketManipulator, UmitBT, ZION, QS(QuickScan),
>>> BluetoothSniffing, etc. The distribution of the package will be the same,
>>>
Hello again,
Adriano answered better that I could. Just appending some notes:
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Bartosz SKOWRON wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Luis A. Bastiao Silva
> wrote:
>
> > It will be happen with UMPA, PacketManipulator, UmitBT, ZION,
> QS(QuickScan),
> > Bluetoo
Hello Bart!
Thanks for your input, and I understand your concerns. Please, read my
remarks in line.
>> It will be happen with UMPA, PacketManipulator, UmitBT, ZION, QS(QuickScan),
>> BluetoothSniffing, etc. The distribution of the package will be the same,
>> what changes is the import.
>
> I wan
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Luis A. Bastiao Silva
wrote:
> It will be happen with UMPA, PacketManipulator, UmitBT, ZION, QS(QuickScan),
> BluetoothSniffing, etc. The distribution of the package will be the same,
> what changes is the import.
I wanna hear what do you mean by 'the distribution
Hello folks,
Recently we had discussed about the packages, and names and what be inside
and outside umit package.
Actually we're following a new structure like umit.plugins,
umit.core.radialnet, umit.networkinvetory,etc.
UmitWeb is also migrating to the new strucure umit.web. (Rodolfo was
migratin
31 matches
Mail list logo
