Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 23:39, B. W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> > > Or if it is an absolute requirement that we have the boxes then why
> > > doesn't each member pitch in a 100 bucks and we'll buy some machines
> > > instead of waiting for the tooth fairy to
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 23:39, B. W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Or if it is an absolute requirement that we have the boxes then why
> > doesn't each member pitch in a 100 bucks and we'll buy some machines
> > instead of waiting for the tooth fairy to drop them in our lap. I'll
> > donate a 100 bucks.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25/11/2003 11:22:49 AM:
> > > Why do we need grand site publications schemes? Geronimo is using
> > > Maven and it's trivial to site:deploy.
> >
> > Umm, it took three weeks to find someone capable of running site:deploy
> >
Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 19:51, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > Cc'ing Stefano. I believe that part of it is happening in lenya land, but
> > it terms of a build server, obviously it will need to be build tool agnosti
> c
> > so that maven, anakia, and other
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 19:51, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Cc'ing Stefano. I believe that part of it is happening in lenya land, but
> it terms of a build server, obviously it will need to be build tool agnostic
> so that maven, anakia, and other tools can be be equally well used to deploy
> sites. T
Hello,
There certainly is a vast amount of potential in a community wide effort. Personally,
I'm interested in the potential for using directories to manage both sources and build
artifacts particularly because of the ability to associate attributes with the items
managed by the repository. W
"Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25/11/2003 11:22:49 AM:
> > Why do we need grand site publications schemes? Geronimo is using
Maven
> > and it's trivial to site:deploy.
>
> Umm, it took three weeks to find someone capable of running site:deploy
> for Geronimo. I think I was the t
Why do we need grand site publications schemes? Geronimo is using Maven
and it's trivial to site:deploy.
Umm, it took three weeks to find someone capable of running site:deploy
for Geronimo. I think I was the third person who tried (and failed).
I think it would be better to build from CVS, but fo
> > But this really is an infrastructure issue, since that is from where the
> > request comes. There are people, like Stefano, working to change the
> > site publication system. I'm sure that your participation would be
> > welcomed.
> Where is this 'work' happening?
> As someone vehemently op
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
+1 if you mean to incubate a particular project, since it seems that you
have a set of codebases and a community to start.
However, unless it is willing to be more inclusive of other related
projects, I don't think that it should be permitted to refer to itself as
the Apac
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25/11/2003 10:37:53 AM:
> +1 if you mean to incubate a particular project, since it seems that you
> have a set of codebases and a community to start.
>
> However, unless it is willing to be more inclusive of other related
> projects, I don't think t
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25/11/2003 10:30:16 AM:
> > Why are sites being forced to check in generated sites?
>
> Because that is what infrastructure has asked. The rest of your points
are
> all perfectly valid. My best understanding is summarized here:
>
>
>
http://nag
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 19:11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 18:30, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > Why are sites being forced to check in generated sites?
> >
> > Because that is what infrastructure has asked. The rest of your points are
> > all perfectly valid. My best understanding
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 18:30, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Why are sites being forced to check in generated sites?
>
> Because that is what infrastructure has asked. The rest of your points are
> all perfectly valid. My best understanding is summarized here:
>
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrow
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 18:25, Martin Cooper wrote:
> "Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Howdy,
> >
> > Why are sites being forced to check in generated sites?
>
> Because it's currently required. See:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-common
+1 if you mean to incubate a particular project, since it seems that you
have a set of codebases and a community to start.
However, unless it is willing to be more inclusive of other related
projects, I don't think that it should be permitted to refer to itself as
the Apache Repository project. I
> Why are sites being forced to check in generated sites?
Because that is what infrastructure has asked. The rest of your points are
all perfectly valid. My best understanding is summarized here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pache.org&msgNo=5207
But this really is an i
"Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Howdy,
>
> Why are sites being forced to check in generated sites?
Because it's currently required. See:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=106917796130227&w=2
The same discussion has been going on
Howdy,
Why are sites being forced to check in generated sites? That seems
uneccessary given that the sources from which the site is being
generated are kept in CVS. Even in the event of disaster it would take
minutes in addition to whatever other recovery work was required in
order to build the si
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
-1: Repo is an American colloquialism that is short for "Repossession",
which is not something you want in a distribution tool. You need
to find a neutral name.
Ha, this is the second time I come up with a name that has a "second"
meaning in American. I had already
> -1: Repo is an American colloquialism that is short for "Repossession",
> which is not something you want in a distribution tool. You need
> to find a neutral name.
Ok, let's put the name as a "to be determined".
regards
Adam
-
I am fine with calling it Apache Repository .
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
-1: Repo is an American colloquialism that is short for "Repossession",
which is not something you want in a distribution tool. You need
to find a neutral name.
Roy
-
-1: Repo is an American colloquialism that is short for "Repossession",
which is not something you want in a distribution tool. You need
to find a neutral name.
Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For addi
On Nov 23, 2003, at 10:10 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
There is only one thing that would *really* change and that has not
been done till now.
Committers could be given commit access long before having project
member status, and would thus be able to commit but not vote. This
makes it possible
+1 from me.
-- dims
--- Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some weeks ago I have talked about incubating Apache Repo, a project for
> an implementation and feedback of/to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the
> meantime we have contacted others that we thought would be interested,
> and upda
Some weeks ago I have talked about incubating Apache Repo, a project for
an implementation and feedback of/to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the
meantime we have contacted others that we thought would be interested,
and updated the proposal.
This is the final proposal I ask the Incubator Project to vote
The avail file did not reflect what have to be the correct access to the
Incubator Project CVS resources, and I have thus changed it.
Here is an explanation of the access now is:
1 - All Incubator Project PMC members have full access to all
the CVS repositories of the project, *including*
Noel made an interesting suggestion on the PMC list:
---
Alternatively, the PPMC could consist of the Incubator PMC, the destination
PMC (in cases where there is one), and project Committers. In that case,
there is a single streamlined process, without additional interconnects.
This does have the
Leo Simons wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Committers could be given commit access long before having project
member status, and would thus be able to commit but not vote. This
makes it possible to keep a high bar for membership of the project but
a lower bar for committing.
Is this possible
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Committers could be given commit access long before having project
member status, and would thus be able to commit but not vote. This
makes it possible to keep a high bar for membership of the project but
a lower bar for committing.
Is this possible/wanted?
I think I
Secondly, given the original intent of the concept of a PMC, I am
curious as to why the board permitted umbrella PMCs such as XML and
Jakarta.
The board did not create umbrella PMCs -- XML was Xerces and Jakarta
was Tomcat/Watchdog. They grew beyond that because their names implied
more, and nob
31 matches
Mail list logo
