Yuri, I wanted to coordinate with you on this. Is there a date/time that works well for you. I have a least one code review I owe you. Would you prefer to get the couple outstanding code reviews completed so you can get that code checked in before the move.
Basically, we need to establish a mini code freeze. ~Michael On Sep 18, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Yuri Z wrote: > We postponed the move until 28-th Sep as by Michael's request. The Wiki for > PMC was updated accordingly on 13-th Sep. > BTW, @Michael, when are you planning to complete the move? > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Doug <[email protected]> wrote: > arc:~ douglasl$ svn ls https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/ > branches/ > site/ > tags/ > trunk/ > arc:~ douglasl$ svn ls https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/trunk > arc:~ douglasl$ > > ...? > > ~ > Doug. > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Christian Grobmeier > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > +1 good to see some progress here! > > I am really looking forward to a first release :-) > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Michael MacFadden > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think we have reached a consensus on the clean check in approach. We > > should be able to mention that we have decided on the approach in the > > report. Should we also set a target date for doing the migration? I am > > more than happy to do the migration. I think we should give ourselves 2 > > weeks to actually move the code over, just to be safe. This way we can > > discuss any organization or structural issues that may come up. > > > > > > If we have a method and a date, then I think we have a good plan to put > > in the board report. > > > > > > ~Michael > > > > > > > > > On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Upayavira wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Monday, September 12, 2011 1:12 PM, "Jasper Horn" > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Upayavira wrote: > > >>>> Right, the source code is the project's most valuable possession. The > > >>>> ASF as a charitable organisation exists to produce software, therefore > > >>>> it must be in control of its main asset, the asset it exists to > > create! > > >>> > > >>> Talk about "control", "possessions" and "assets" doesn't sound much > > >>> like Open Source to me... > > >> > > >> All software is owned (with the exception of public domain). Open source > > >> software makes strong use of copyright law, which is all about > > >> 'ownership'. Open source isn't about ownership, it is about licensing. > > >> Apache 'owns' the code (actually, owns the copyright on the collection, > > >> that is made up of individual parts which are owned by the respective > > >> authors), but then, in keeping with its non-profit mission, it makes > > >> that code available with a very liberal license to anyone who wants to > > >> use it. > > >> > > >> As a part of that, people have come to trust Apache software, and that > > >> needs some protecting - making sure that we keep to an approach that is > > >> worthy of that trust. So yes, Apache does protect its code. Apache does > > >> protect its trademarks. It is all Apache exists for. It protects its > > >> code and the methods used to create it so that it *can* make it > > >> available to the public, for no charge. > > >> > > >>>> There's scope to host code on git on Apache infrastructure, but that > > >>>> requires volunteers to assist with a deployment. > > >>> > > >>> What would need to be done? > > >> > > >> You can join the [email protected] mailing list and ask there. I'm > > >> not so sure about all the details. But bear in mind that the kind of > > >> install that Apache needs is more substantial than most. It needs a > > >> workflow that effectively tracks code's origins (SVN does this well, > > >> with git, as I understand it, there are ways to work around this). But, > > >> to be honest, I'm not sure what the current road blocks are other than > > >> volunteer time. > > >> > > >> Upayavira > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.grobmeier.de > > >
