On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:57 AM, Michael MacFadden wrote:
Once we get the issues migrated over we can get the source code moved over as
well. Past that, there is also the process for making an incubator release
that needs to be followed.
Yep. If this is to be an Incubator release, the code
I agree, we should move the code and issues to Apache infra and this should
be the priority. I don't know anything about Jira, but I would like to
assist.
Michael, can you please explain what is the current status and what are the
showstoppers?
2011/4/22 Michael MacFadden
Following Yuri's Poll I noticed that Access control wasn't listed other then
public waves. A while ago that issue was discussed. I'll admit I was probably
the first to caution. That is becuase I didn't want access control to become
inflexible by design, and I was theorising custom access
Well, WIAB supports Federation. Maybe the protocol can be improved and some
federation related bugs should be fixed, but all in all basic federation is
supported even now. 1.0 release or 0.5 release - is pure semantics. Maybe we
need to define release naming policy...
I think the whole point of
While Googles own service was limited to a single domain (for obvious
business
reasons)
i always believed there was low incentive for Google to produce a non
centralised system. They want to do well in social networking after all. Non
centralised Facebook, don't think so.
I agree. Read-only should definitely be the third.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Thomas Wrobel darkfl...@gmail.com wrote:
Read only? Personally I'd love per-wavelet level settings for
individual users but that might be quite complex for now.
On 22 April 2011 10:47, Paul Thomas
what i was saying was that a participant could be added more than once in
different AC incarnations and that can determine what happens on the blips
created by them, rather than blip level participation. Authoring is a different
abstract than participants. Authoring blips is a right of
Nat what you are talking about is similar to my relating idea except relation
would be inherently graphable. Still maybe a bit complex for now.
From: Nathanael Abbotts nat.abbo...@gmail.com
To: wave-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, 22 April, 2011 15:31:03
The simple solution with a link back to the original Google Code issue
sounds OK to me.
We can keep the Google Code issues available for as long as we want. I
can't see a way to make the Google Code issues read-only but it should
be easy enough to communicate that new comments and new issues
If this can be done without too much trouble, I think it would also be
useful for links to the Jira bugs to be added to the Google Code issue
tracker (probably as comments) so people who come to comment on those bugs
know they have been moved.
—Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro
On Apr 22, 2011 11:54 AM,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 17:17, Thomas Wrobel darkfl...@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't mater what we call our next goal, but if we call it 1.0 it
should have federation working to an acceptable level. (as 1.0 is a
public perception thing).
If history can teach us anything (initial GWave release,
I agree, I know it's petty semantics, but I would say a 0.x release would be
more appropriate.
That said, James's point is well taken that simply going through the release
exercise is important and will focus us regardless of what the version number
actually is.
~Michael
On Apr 22, 2011,
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 01:32, Michael MacFadden
michael.macfad...@gmail.com wrote:
James has built a script (linked below) that is a good start, but dosn't as
of yet grab the comments.
I just fixed this (and some other problems with the script). It now
exports the comments as part of the
Thanks Christian. I will take a look at it. In regards to the assertion, it
looks like we are assuming only two labels for type and priority. Obviously an
issue can have other labels. This shouldn't be to hard to fix with some string
parsing instead of just assuming the number and position
I was wondering how the rewrite of pygowave was going
From: Adrian Cochrane alci...@eml.cc
To: wave-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, 22 April, 2011 21:44:25
Subject: Federation, multiple servers
hello there,
I am the manager of PyOfWave
15 matches
Mail list logo
