+1 (non-binding)
Niall
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is
an agreeable solution:
--
The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
committers. The
On 10/12/06, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did, but the ibatis.html file at least, appears to have that
property set, as does my SVN client!
Generated files cause this, same issue occurs with the Apache site:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-881
Theres a solution on the
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.
When the Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we
ought to focus on actual requirements, such as:
Licensin
On 10/12/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
>
> On a sort of related note, are the membership lists of the various
> PPMCs actually documented anywhere? I mean is there a PPMC version of
> committee-info.txt like there is for PMCs?
Hopefully projects are m
I did, but the ibatis.html file at least, appears to have that
property set, as does my SVN client!
/Gwyn
On 12/10/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Read the last three paragraphs of the section
http://www.apache.org/dev/version-control.html#https-svn
We probably (I haven't looked
Garrett Rooney wrote:
>
> On a sort of related note, are the membership lists of the various
> PPMCs actually documented anywhere? I mean is there a PPMC version of
> committee-info.txt like there is for PMCs?
Hopefully projects are maintaining their root status files with this info
http://incu
Read the last three paragraphs of the section
http://www.apache.org/dev/version-control.html#https-svn
We probably (I haven't looked) have files without the eol-style attribute,
and there are likely committers who have not configured svn as described.
--- Noel
-
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> the reason i didn't +1 wasn't anything to do with the unpacking but
> the fact that there are a lot of files without license headers and
> so of dubious original.
:-)
> > what those actual requirements are should be documented so that the
> > projects aren't surpri
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.
> > When the Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we
> > ought to focus on actual requirements, such as:
> > Licensing
> > Notification
> > Signing (if
Endre,
I think you are missing the community part of ASF. ASF is not a
company, nor a big old business. It is a community with a variety of
projects, and as such a variety of packaging demands and wishes.
I like the idea of a (pretty) low bar entry to Apache where the only
criteria are the ones
> Imo ASF has enough written and unwritten rules. Following discussions
> on this forum since a few weeks feels like making the transition from
> a small young company to a large old one, where procedures and
> politics are more prevalent than a more practical 'can do' spirit.
It's also often the
Hi,
I've updated site-author/stylesheets/project.xml (to add Wicket to
the list of projects,) and run ant but I'm having problems when I try
& check-in the updated files in site-publish, in that I get the
following sort of errors:-
svn: File 'd:\Wicket\Apache\incubator\site-publish\projects\iba
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
On 10/12/06, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
>> My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
>
> Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback,
and
> should be considered by projects. But does
On 10/12/06, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the
>> packaging,
>> there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference
Also having gone through this recently, +1 (non binding).
It will however be really important that this policy is easy to find for
someone looking to enter incubation as to make sure it is discussed with the
champion.
--David
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback, and
should be considered by projects. But does it rise to the standard of
needing to be enforced?
IMO
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > the source distributions unpacks to the same directory as the binary.
> > this is inconvenient for users. it's better to unpack the source to
> > incubator-activemq-4.0.2-src.
> I
+1 (non binding)
This sounds reasonable, and takes clearly into account the incoming community.
Martijn
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is
an agreeable solution:
--
The Champi
Garrett Rooney asked:
> are the membership lists of the various PPMCs actually documented
anywhere?
They SHOULD be in the status file, but generally are not. Coincidentally, I
had this very discussion with David Reid earlier in the week, and am looking
forward to seeing his proposal for managing
On 10/12/06, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
>> My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
>
> Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback, and
> should be considered by projects. But does it rise to the standard of
+1
On 12 Oct 06, at 11:42 AM 12 Oct 06, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I
hope is
an agreeable solution:
--
The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the
initial
committers. The Champion sh
+1 (non-binding, but opinionated)
Craig
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I
hope is
an agreeable solution:
--
The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the
in
Having just been through it ;-) this sounds very reasonable to me.
I am not sure the issue of emeritus committers needs to be addressed
since that can be handled by the project once it's up and running...
The main thing seems to be the clarification around the initial
committer list and PPMC mem
On Oct 12, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.
When the
Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we ought to
focus on
actual requirements, such as:
Licensing
Notification
Signing
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback, and
should be considered by projects. But does it rise to the standard of
needing to be enforced?
In my opinion, yes.
This is because
On 10/10/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given recent PPMC discussions on general@, it has been on my mind to add a
section titled "Voting in a new PPMC member" to
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
Brian McCallister and I chatted about this at the hackathon. Since havi
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > > - the PPMC has no legal standing, so no need for board notification
> i'm not sure about this. roy seems very convinced that PPMCs are
> official committees.
IMO, he's wrong. The Incubator PMC is the sole body recognized by the ASF's
legal structure. The onl
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> The suggested PPMC habit would be:
> - vote in a new candidate
Notify the Incubator PMC of the ongoing vote.
> - ask for Incubator PMC acknowledgement ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Actually, IMO all that we really want is a notice, since the prior notice
(above) would have allo
+1 from me.
-- dims
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is
an agreeable solution:
--
The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
committers. The Ch
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> My two (probably rather worthless) cents:
Not at all worthless. What you posted is perfectly valid feedback, and
should be considered by projects. But does it rise to the standard of
needing to be enforced?
--- Noel
---
Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is
an agreeable solution:
--
The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to
justify each inclusion (
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the
packaging,
there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference
should not be a release criteria for the Incubator?
Yes, agreed,
Hi,
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the packaging,
there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference
should not be a release criteria for the Incubator?
Yes, agreed, +1. This is a technic
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > the source distributions unpacks to the same directory as the binary.
> > this is inconvenient for users. it's better to unpack the source to
> > incubator-activemq-4.0.2-src.
> I disagree with that.
> I don't think there is a generally
34 matches
Mail list logo
