Re: [VOTE] Accept Aries proposal for incubation

; Apache License (hosted by ASF). >    * Eclipse Equinox (compliant implementation of the OSGi Core > Specification and Compendium specifications) > http://eclipse.org/equinox/ Eclipse Public License >    * OpenJPA http://openjpa.apache.org Apache License >    * Serp http://serp.sourcefo

Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi

2009/9/1 Guillaume Nodet : > Not sure how to articulate my thoughts here. > > First, it's not about competing against Felix, though you'll find in the ASF > multiple competing products (Axis vs CXF to mention only this one) and the > ASF has never stated as a goal that it would provide a coherent o

Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi

2009/9/1 Richard S. Hall : > The Apache Felix project, since its inception, has been intended to host > implementations of the OSGi specifications, which includes both the > framework as well as other standard services. A framework implementation was > just one of the goals. > > This proposal seems

Re: [VOTE] [POLICY] Allow extra release distribution channels like the central Maven repository

+1 on the proviso that all incubator releases include the phrase incubator/incubating in their version, artifact or group ID so that its clear that its an incubator release. Stopping incubating artifacts from being in the central repo is just silly given they are already in a maven repo (its trivi

Re: [VOTE] Approve release CXF 2.0.5-incubator

+1 On 26/03/2008, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We held a vote on cxf-dev to release a new version of CXF. This version > is pretty much just a big "bug fix rollup" compared to 2.0.4 fixing over > 30 JIRA issues reported by users, one of which is a security issue. > > For a full

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF Graduation as TLP

+1 Only 20 months huh - lightweights :) On 18/03/2008, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After 20 months in the incubator, 6 releases complete and 2 more on the > way shortly, several new committers, and too much email traffic :-), the > Apache CXF community (with support from our me

Re: [VOTE] Move Project Yoko to Apache Geronimo and Apache CXF

+1 On 11/12/2007, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Below is a proposal that was discussed and brought forward by the Yoko > Community. In a nutshell the proposal is to create a Yoko sub-project > of Apache Geronimo for the Core ORB and to move the bindings to CXF. > Please read the prop

Re: [VOTE] Accept Shindig for Incubation

+1 On 29/11/2007, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This vote will run until Monday, Dec. 3, 2007. > > [ ] +1 Accept Shindig for incubation > [ ] 0 Don't care > [ ] -1 Reject for the following reason : > > > = Abstract = > > Shindig will develop a container and backend server

Re: [VOTE] Approve release CXF 2.0.3-incubator

+1 On 10/11/2007, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We held a vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] to publish a new patch > release of Apache CXF.This release is mostly a patch release to fix > problems and issues (82 JIRA items resolved) that users have encountered > in the 2.0.2-incubator > re

Re: [VOTE] Accept Composer in the Incubator

+1 On 22/10/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > The proposal for Composer has been drafted here: > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ComposerProposal > > As mentioned previously, both containers are heavily used, both have > always lived as open source projects. Plexus has 17

Re: [VOTE] accept Pig into Incubator

+1 On 25/09/2007, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to call the Incubator PMC to vote to incubate the proposed > Pig project. Discussion on this list evidenced broad interest in this > project, which bodes well for its ability to build a diverse developer > community. > > htt

Re: [VOTE] Graduate ServiceMix to a Top Level Project (2nd thread)

EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Jonas Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Thomas Termin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&

Re: [Discuss] Graduate ServiceMix to a Top Level Project

Am just about to disappear on vacation for a week offline; so here's my +1 On 7/13/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sounds good to me On 7/13/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/13/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: [Discuss] Graduate ServiceMix to a Top Level Project

Sounds good to me On 7/13/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/13/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/13/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What about "a pluggable messaging bus for enterprise service > > integration, mediation and composition

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)

Robert, are you happy to +1 the release now? On 6/19/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/16/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have have some questions that need answering before we can proceed > with the release. Please them inline below: > > On 5/29/07, Gui

Re: NMS

On 6/7/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bingo. Nicely explained. I'm glad someone else sees the problem. We need to keep our software 100% clean; its amazing how much IP law you need to know to write code and give it away. Which is why the generic form API for AMQP should be derived

Re: NMS

On 6/7/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe we should create a set of APIs that offer genuinely open access to messaging systems on .NET, Java, C, C# etc. Of course if Sun wished to offer us the JMS API under an unencumbered license we could do that, otherwise we could start from s

Re: NMS

On 6/7/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hiram > I guess you are referring to the license to that allows a person to > hold a copy of the JMS spec. I wonder if violating/terminating the > that license IP taints any work created using Ideas obtain from it. > Since this seems to be i

Re: NMS

On 6/7/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what is NMS? NMS is a .NET version of JMS. Not quite. Its a .Net Messaging API to the various MOMs available on the .Net platform such as MSMQ, TibCo, MQSeries together with new implementations such as for ActiveMQ and Stomp. Its just as si

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)

+1 looks good to me On 5/22/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have uploaded a version of ServiceMix 3.1.1 in the standard repo for you to review. See http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/servicemix-311.html for the future download page and release notes (these are also included

Re: [VOTE] Graduate OpenJPA to a Top Level Project

+1 On 5/9/07, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 Good folks, good community, good code! Agreed - am hoping we can make the bytecode post processing step an optional optimisation rather than a mandatory feature to make it super easy for folks migrating from hibernate Awesome w

Re: [vote] (repost) Propose OpenEJB for graduation to a TLP

+1 On 5/3/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After the previous discussion, the proposal has been amended to include the new wording. We will restart the vote. Please cast your votes on whether to recommend this proposal. Thanks, Brett (OpenEJB Mentor) Establish Apache OpenEJB

Re: [VOTE] approve release of CXF 2.0-incubator-RC

+1 On 4/27/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We held a vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] to publish a new release of CXF. The thread is at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/200704.mbox/<200704241450.11157.dkulp%40apache.org> In summary, we have 11 +1 votes, 1 0 vote

Re: [VOTE] approve release of OpenJPA 0.9.7

On 4/25/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FWIW, I think that RAT was run at some point during the process. Ah great! Maybe next release, include a link to the RAT report too to avoid folks asking about it :) -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ ---

Re: [VOTE] approve release of OpenJPA 0.9.7

+1 looks good to me. It might be worth running RAT against the release next time to double check that all the license headers are properly applied etc. On 4/24/07, Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We held a vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] to publish a new release of OpenJPA. The vote email thr

Re: [VOTE] Formally retired the Wadi project

+1 On 4/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brian McCallister wrote: > I think wadi withdrew from incubation. It seems > alive here: http://wadi.codehaus.org/ Correct. +1 to formally retire it. --- Noel ---

Re: March Board reports due

On 3/6/07, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hola podlings, This month's ASF Board reports should be written up on the wiki at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2007, like, now ;) OpenEJB, kudos for being ahead of the game ;) ActiveMQ, Trinidad, ODE, NMaven, River, UIMA, Wicket, plea

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ServiceMix 3.1-incubating (2nd try)

+1 On 2/9/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The ServiceMix community has voted to relase apache-serviemix-3.1-incubating. We now ask the Incubator PMC to approve this release. Download page, release notes, etc ... http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/servicemix-31.html Direct

Re: [VOTE] Release ActiveMQ-CPP 1.1

+1 On 1/18/07, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The ActiveMQ community has voted on the release of ActiveMQ CPP 1.1 with a total of 6 +1's. Ths source bundle for the release candidate can be found here: http://people.apache.org/~nmittler/incubator-activemq-cpp-1.1-src.zip

Re: [vote] ActiveMQ Graduation

ncks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED

resigning as Mentor for Qpid

Unfortunately I don't have the spare time these days. -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.1.0 (RC 2)

So if my mental arithmetic is correct the results are 3 binding +1s 6 +1s from the PPMC so this vote passes. Thanks to all those who took the time to review the distros. On 11/14/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey folks, I was able to finally get around to doing a binary releas

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

On 11/26/06, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So out of curiosity, do you do this just for the incubator release vote, or do you go through the same process for the votes on your PMC list as well? If the same, do you anticipate going through the same process for votes after incubation?

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

On 11/21/06, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only final bits are voted on.

Re: [VOTE] Release ActiveMQ CPP 1.0

+1 On 11/16/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 though I'd consider making the configure script +x in the future. -Brian On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Nathan Mittler wrote: > The ActiveMQ community has voted on the release of ActiveMQ CPP 1.0 > with a > total of 6 +1's. > > The

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.1.0 (RC 2)

+1 Looks good to me. On 11/14/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey folks, I was able to finally get around to doing a binary release candidate from the 4.1 branch. it's available here: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.1.0-RC2/m2-incubating-repository/org/apa

[VOTE RESULT] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 (RC 6)

With 3 binding +1s and 7 +1s from the PPMC I think we've finally got the 4.0.2 release approved! :) On 11/8/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 from me. -- dims On 11/8/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hiram, > > I pulled the versions from your personal site and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.2 (RC 6)

+1 On 10/30/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Some last minute NOTICE issues were still present in the 5th release candidate of the 4.0.2 build. We have also received confirmation from Apache legal discuss that it's ok to include work covered by the "Creative Commons Attribution" lic

mirroring/rsyncing the maven repos on people.apache.org?

With the hardware issues of people.apache.org lately its been a trying week working on stuff in the incubator - maven builds have been failing most of the week. We've also lost a few releases it seems (XBean 2.7, ServiceMix 3.0 maybe others too) due to the reversal to an old backup. Am wondering,

Re: [VOTE] approve the 4.0.2 (RC4) release of ActiveMQ

mq-dev/200609.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote result: The VOTE has passed with 7 ppmc +1's and no -1s. +1 Hiram Chirino +1 James Strachan +1 Rob Davies +1 Guillaume Nodet +1 Brian McCallister +1 Alan D. Cabrera +1 Aaron Mulder Release tarball: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activem

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0-incubating

+1 On 9/20/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The ServiceMix community voted on and approved to release the 3.0-incubating version [1]. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy and we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish this rele

Re: [VOTE] Approve the 4.1 release of ActiveMQ's maven plugins

d with 5 ppmc +1's and no -1s. +1 Hiram Chirino +1 Guillaume Nodet +1 Rob Davies +1 James Strachan +1 Alan D. Cabrera We also had 1 non ppmc +1: +1 Kevan Miller You can checkout the binary build here: http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository/org/apache/activemq/ The release was

Re: [VOTE] approve the 4.0.2 release of ActiveMQ

mq-dev/ > 200608.mbox/% > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Vote result: > The VOTE has passed with 7 ppmc +1's and no -1s. > > +1 Hiram Chirino > +1 James Strachan > +1 Rob Davies > +1 Guillaume Nodet > +1 Alan D. Cabrera > +1 Aaron Mulder > +1 Brian McCallister > >

Re: Forming an ActiveMQ PPMC

On 8/16/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The ActiveMQ committers have decided to aim for TLP status (1), as such we need to get a PPMC in place. Thus far we have been working under a "committer votes all count" style (really, everyone's vote counts, it is on a public list without

Re: Setting up a Maven 2 repo Was: Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases?

+1 On 8/15/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 from me. On 8/14/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > people.apache.org/repo/m1-incubating-repository > > > people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository > > > >

Re: Specifications as (part of) ASF projects (was RE: Too many licenses? Was: [vote] Accept Glasgow)

On 8/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Carl Trieloff wrote: > -> Is Apache in the business of writing and publishing specifications? <- > As long as Apache is not in the business of also creating > specifications, there will be by definition some separation > between code and sp

Re: Dynamic message selectors and message scheduling

On 8/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the thread titled "RE: [Proposal] Blaze", James Strachan wrote: > Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Totally unrelated ... JMS has the ability to create a message filter, but > > one of

Re: Minimum footprint question about Glasgow

If small footprint is your primary aim you might want to consider using the Stomp protocol which is extremely easy to write a client for (at the expense of some performance for high volume clients). http://stomp.codehaus.org/Protocol e.g. the entire Ruby client is a page or two of code (and its

Re: Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases?

On 8/1/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8/1/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand the concerns of keeping incubating code separate from the > rest of Apache and away from the mirrors - I just don't yet see the > issu

Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)

On 7/30/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? I'd also like commitment from the folks-behind-the-closed-doors that any AMQP TCK will be freely available for Apache to use (maybe only for those who sign the necessary NDAs like whe

Re: Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases?

On 8/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brett Porter wrote: > So the solution that best corresponds to this is an incubation repository. That's what's been said, but you're one of the Maven ... er ... mavens. :-) If it helps Noel, here's a couple of use cases. In ActiveMQ we s

Re: Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases?

On 7/28/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/27/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand the current rules of the incubator forbid the use of the > apache mirrors for incubating projects. The maven repositories are no longer mirrored, so that

Re: Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases?

On 7/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > incubator-m1-SNAPSHOT > > > > incubator + > > m1 = milestone1 > > + SNAPSHOT (since no m1 release yet) > > Sounds good to me. So we put this to the guideline? incubator + mX (+ SNAPSHOT) > > What I more like that a seperate maven

Re: Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases?

On 7/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually thats a good argument for using a single maven 2 repository > for incubating and non-incubating releases and forcing the use of the > 'incubator/incubating' text in the version of incubating projects > releases. As it means if

Re: Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases?

On 7/27/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 09:14:11AM +0100, James Strachan wrote: > I understand the current rules of the incubator forbid the use of the > apache mirrors for incubating projects. I didn't know of that rule. Can't find it o

Re: Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases?

On 7/27/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/27/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand the current rules of the incubator forbid the use of the > apache mirrors for incubating projects. Why do you think so? If, as you say, the arti

Maven 2 repo for incubating project releases?

We currently have a maven 2 repository for maven 2 snapshot releases of incubating projects... http://people.apache.org/maven-snapshot-repository/ we also have a maven 1 repository for both incubating and non-incubating projects http://people.apache.org/repository/ and we have a maven2 repositor

Re: [Proposal] Blaze

On 7/19/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Paul Fremantle wrote: > Carl > > I think some of the team have a good point on the IP and licensing > issues. One issue that is very frustrating from an Apache perspective > is if there are some committers involved in the spec process, and > ot

Re: [Proposal] Blaze

would be interested in donating XMS. RG |-+----> | | "James Strachan" | | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | mail.com>| | || | | 19/07/2006 20:50 | |

Re: [Proposal] Blaze

On 7/19/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Currently ActiveMQ has several C/C++ clients (with another client > library waiting to get through the donator's lawyers), so it might > make sense at some point to try unify the C++ clients together too so > users have a single C++ API for

Re: [Proposal] Blaze

On 7/19/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: James Strachan wrote: > I hope to see some collaboration further > down the line so that code can be reused across ActiveMQ and Blaze. Agreed! Paul Fremantle wrote: > I think it would be interesting to see a confluence

Re: [Proposal] Blaze

On 7/19/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: James Strachan wrote: > On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ian Holsman wrote: >> Blaze is about only AMQP, a proposed standard for interoperable >> messaging. >> ActiveMQ implem

Re: [Proposal] Blaze

On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Holsman wrote: Blaze is about only AMQP, a proposed standard for interoperable messaging. ActiveMQ implements multiple protocols. There is some disagreement between AMQP proponents and the ActiveMQ team regarding the desirability of balk

Re: [Proposal] Blaze

On 7/19/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 19/07/2006, at 1:41 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Ian Holsman wrote: > >> isn't Active MQ an alternative to Blaze/AMQP ? >> If this project was accepted would Apache have *2* different >> messaging servers? > > Ant and Maven? Axis2 and XFire

Re: [Proposal] Blaze

On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Totally unrelated ... JMS has the ability to create a message filter, but one of the limitations is that the filter is applied when the receiver is created, rather than when a get operation is executed. This makes sense for the push receiver

Re: [VOTE] CeltiXfire Project Proposal

+1 On 7/13/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to vote +1 (non-binding) Regards, Matthias On 7/12/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > There has been plenty of discussion around the CeltiXfire proposal, > we feel that all the issues forwarded have been

Re: 'protocols' sub-module of MINA

On 7/3/06, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How timely...i've just spent the last hour or two today looking at AsyncWeb after Dan Diephouse telling me about it at ApacheCon in Dublin. I'm interested how this could be used by Tuscany or Synapse, so moving it to Apache sounds good to me. Anyo

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix

+1 On 6/26/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 On 25 Jun 06, at 8:16 PM 25 Jun 06, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the > ServiceMix community has voted on and approved a proposal to release > 3.0-M2. > > We would now like to r

Re: [PROPOSAL] CeltiXfire Project

the project rather than these woolly marketing terms like ESB & SOA which don't really mean anything ;) On 6/22/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 17:30 +0200, James Strachan wrote: > > CeltixFire is aimed at implementing the J

Re: [PROPOSAL] CeltiXfire Project

On 6/21/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In any case, the framework part seems just like what JBI impls like ServiceMix are doing and what JBI alternates like SCA (Tuscany) are doing. Since James is a mentor of this maybe he can explain the relationship (or lack thereof) between

Re: [PROPOSAL] CeltiXfire Project

On 6/22/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan, ok. let's stick to the technical side for a minute and let me layout a logic. - Tuscany started with an Axis1 binding and then they added Axis2. When Celtix guys wanted to do the same, We welcomed Dan and got him cranking. - So Tuscan

Re: [PROPOSAL] CeltiXfire Project

Its also worth remembering that Hani is also a member of the JCP Executive Committee and contributes alot to both Java & J2SE standards as well as numerous open source projects. I know Hani pretty well and he'll be an awesome addition to any Apache project. The bileblog is simply an extremely funn

Re: [PROPOSAL] CeltiXfire Project

Being 'biled' should be taken as a compliment :) On 6/21/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, you should be on the other side like i was [1] or the tomcat folks were and face it. I higly recommend it. it's depressing and demoralizing to say the least. -- dims [1] http://jrolle

[VOTE] approve the 4.0.1 release of ActiveMQ

er +1 James Strachan +1 Rob Davies Release tarball: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.1-RC1/maven1/incubator-activemq/distributions/ Releases section of the Incubation Policy: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases Here's my +1

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve ActiveMQ 4.0 Release (new binary)

On 6/12/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/12/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Passed with +1s from jstrachan, jim, jvanzyl, brianm and no -1s. i'm still a bit concerned about potential legal issues if the uber is distributed throu

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve ActiveMQ 4.0 Release (new binary)

Passed with +1s from jstrachan, jim, jvanzyl, brianm and no -1s. Many thanks to all those who responded to the plethora of emails to get the release distro into good shape :) On 6/5/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We ended up recutting the binary of the 4.0 release of Activ

Re: JAXB API target

On 6/7/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/7/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am kinda thinking it needs a very different kind of pmc/committer > model so a new top level project might be simplest. > > e.g. any comitter at a

Re: JAXB API target

]> wrote: I wonder if Jakarta would be willing to mange the specs. When I think of Java at Apache, I think of Jakarta so it seems like a natural place to keep specs. Also Jakarta has experience dealing with lots of small code bases. just an idea... -dain On Jun 7, 2006, at 9:08 AM, James Str

Re: JAXB API target

On 6/7/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, then the APIs will be in that special "spec project" and impls will be done in their own projects? Yes - as there could be many implementations For MyFaces this would mean javax.faces.** will be developed in that "spec project" an

Re: JAXB API target

Agreed - I think a shared java spec project makes sense where we can unify stuff across all projects like jaxb, geronimo-spec, harmony, servicemix (we've got the JBI API) into one place. On 6/7/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There was a thread about a java spec central repositor

[VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve ActiveMQ 4.0 Release (new binary)

e.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-activemq-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote result: The latest vote was 7 +1s and no -1s. +1 Hiram Chirino +1 Guillaume Nodet +1 Bruce Snyder +1 Adrian Co +1 Jonas Lim +1 James Strachan +1 Fritz Oconer Release tarball: http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activem

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve ActiveMQ 4.0 Release

Hi Jim On 5/27/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: README.txt and userGuide.html (at least) should be updated to reflect Apache ActiveMQ, not just 'ActiveMQ' Is STATUS appropriate to be bundled in the release? Will vote +1 after the above are addressed. I think we've addressed your

Re: [VOTE] Request to release (revised) Tuscany M1

+1 (binding) On 5/26/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We voted on tuscany-dev on a revised version that addresses the issues Robert raised below and the results can be viewed at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.webservices.tuscany.devel/3403 We would like to request approv

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve ActiveMQ 4.0 Release

On 5/27/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 13:11 +0100, James Strachan wrote: > In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the > ActiveMQ community has voted on and approved the 4.0 release binary. > > We would now l

Re: STATUS files in podling release

On 5/27/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/27/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is STATUS appropriate to be bundled in the release? > I had the same question relating to the Tuscany release. In general I don't think it should as STATUS reflects the state of the projec

[VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve ActiveMQ 4.0 Release

-release.html Vote thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-activemq-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote result: The VOTE has passed with 10 committer +1's and 1 non-committer +1 and no -1s. +1 James Strachan +1 Hiram Chirino +1 Rob Davies +1 Guillaume Nodet +1 Jonas Lim +1

Re: Incubator Board Report, April 2006

On 4/25/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Comments inline. On 4/22/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It appears that Felix may apply for TLP status at the May Board meeting. Look forward to it. > ActiveMQ ... > Currently working to accept a donation from Amazon fo

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix

On 4/24/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > most of the questions raised are covered in the canonical documentation: > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html. i'd hope that all release managers > for podlings would spend the time required to read the existing release > do

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix

On 4/24/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/21/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Incidentally there are useful bits of documentation on performing > > releases in the documentation/wikis of various projects at Apache. > &

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix

On 4/21/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James, dude, > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 07:15:48AM +0100, James Strachan wrote: > > On 4/20/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:59:30PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix

On 4/20/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:59:30PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > -1 > > > > Bill Stoddard is correct in his understanding of > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases. The > > fact that other people have voted

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix

On 4/20/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -1 > > Bill Stoddard is correct in his understanding of > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases. The > fact that other people have voted +1 without verifying that the release > adheres to Incubator policy is

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix

+1 On 4/19/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 from me. > > -- dims > > On 4/18/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The ServiceMix project voted on and has approved a proposal to release > > ServiceMix 3.0-M1. > > Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ

On 4/10/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Strachan wrote: > > > Release tarball: > > > http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0-RC2/distributions/ > > > Releases section of the Incubation Policy: > > http://incubator.ap

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ

On 4/10/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, I took a few days off... It's hard enough to deal with the "no > email shakes"... > > +1 from me. > > Works fine, and my little nit has been fixed - the URL in the startup > log blather points to the project website. Thanks Geir - hop

Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)

On 4/10/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/10/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get > > involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on > >

Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)

On 4/10/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:44:45AM +0100, James Strachan wrote: > > Just a reminder to the Incubator-PMC - could you please vote to > > approve this release. We had 5 votes from the Geronimo PMC within 24 > > hours of

Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ

ity of the Incubator-PMC on the ActiveMQ project (previous releases were met with similar levels vigourous support ;-) and given the activity of the Geronimo PMC in the project, maybe its time to consider graduating ActiveMQ? James On 4/6/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

[VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ

PROTECTED] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-activemq-dev/200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote result: 9 +1s and no 0/-1 +1: James Strachan, Jonas Lim, Dain Sundstrom, Alan D. Cabrera, Bruce Snyder, Fritz Oconer, Hiram Chirino, Guillaume Nodet, Adrian Co Release tarball: http

[VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ

PROTECTED] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-activemq-dev/200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote result: 9 +1s and no 0/-1 +1: James Strachan, Jonas Lim, Dain Sundstrom, Alan D. Cabrera, Bruce Snyder, Fritz Oconer, Hiram Chirino, Guillaume Nodet, Adrian Co Release tarball: http

  1   2   3   >