Noel J. Bergman wrote:
It contains the commons informations for the James project (website,
repositories, developers, licenses). Think at it as the AbstractPOM
for our POMs (m2 has many Object Oriented things in its architecture)
It seems to me that the site/ structure was being used for that purpose.
That is also where the RDF files, KEYS, etc., have been located. Ok,
perhaps that name "site" wasn't ideal. But at least we're discussing this,
so fine.
If we use site as a backup/tracker for our website content we shouldn't
use the same folder for root poms and other sources.
I think we need a project folder and I wrote this in the vote, so we
could have discussed in that vote if people wanted to put that somewhere
else.
I still think that the project folder is the right position, if you
don't feel so just start a vote to move it under the site folder.
So I think this does not belong to site even if it include many sources
for the site generation.
When you are done doing what you propose, what would site/ be used for?
For the very same things it was used before I started working on james:
keys, rdf, the generated content.
Imho the pom things was polluting the folder and it was mixing 2 things
that had almost nothing to share.
"james-project" would be the root artifact for every product
released under the apache james umbrella.
Clarify. james/ is the root for the james project. Is this just more
Mavenization?
I don't think I can be more clear than this. We have multiple maven2
based products in the James project, they have common informations, and
that informations in maven (that is Object Oriented) is shared in a
"superclass": our james-project.
If we consider that all of our website (even for non-maven2 products) is
generated by maven this is a core part of our development cycle and
should have as much visibility as possible.
You simply replied "That does not seem appropriate." and then ignored my
requests for explanations.
I recall the former. Don't recall seeing the latter. Of course, we've had
a very high volume of e-mail lately, and I've been on the road non-stop
since September 9th, with only Sept 16-17 to even try catching up, and the
Incubator PMC report was a higher priority that weekend, as was working on
the code that Norman's waiting for me to finish.
Ok, so we should restart discussing as soon as you will catch up and you
will have replied to that threads: it does not make sense to start new
threads without replying to the previous one.
I need an answer to my repository proposal
And as I've indicated, there are a variety of considerations going into the
use of proper (including efficient and permissible) use of repositories at
the ASF, so this must be coordinated with [EMAIL PROTECTED] And, yes,
I am aware that as of 16 Sept, you started communicating on that list, so
I'll trust that you'll continue. :)
Yes, I found a solution that allow us to make a m2 release without using
ibiblio dependencies and without adding repositories. I added the
"repo/third-party-m1" as a customized library folder for each product
that need this. I proposed this to the repository list but they never
replied with considerations on this because they started talking again
of repositories security and the fact that they are waiting for your
considerations about the security changes proposal for maven2.
On the repository list Henri Yandell say different things from you and
say that creating a folder in svn adding there 3rd party libraries that
are compatible with the ASF license is something we can do.
Btw I don't have so much time, so I look at concrete things: I just need
a solution to be able to release our m2 based products (mime4j and jspf
first of all). I think the current solution will let us to release them,
and I will start a proposal later that will not include the use of any
network based repository but the one provided by ASF. If you have
alternative solutions please write them: I would be happy if someone
else but me could loose a little of his time figuring out a solution for
this issue.
MANY ASF products based on maven2 are being officially released by ASF
so I guess we'll not be blocked by ASF for this kind of issues: we just
need to do what the others did. I think I already improved the james
solution more than what is required by ASF introducing the local
repository "hack" in mime4j and jspf and replacing ibiblio with the main
ASF repository for the "central" repository in our main pom.
if no answer I need Noel to setup the svn notifications so I can really
work on james repository) and few other things.
I asked this 6 times in 2 weeks then I decided it was much more easy for
me to manually do the notifications.
I didn't see those e-mails. And although I am sorry that you are
frustrated, the lack of an answer doesn't mean that you should simply bypass
ASF policy regarding PMC oversight and do what you want anyway. That's my
complaint. The rest is relatively minor, and I do understand your point of
view.
I think I never bypassed the policy: in fact I did manually every things
was needed to let the PMC knows what happened on the repository and it
seems that every PMC member but you was aware of what was going on and
saw my manual notifications. If this is not correct than provide me the
links where I can read the documentation about this policy, because I
didn't find this.
In any event, I talking with infrastructure to make sure of the correct
changes to have changes at the james/ level notify general@, and everything
else that isn't specifically defined notify server-dev.
--- Noel
Thank you,
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
