"Davanum Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> #1) End user using an Incubator podling m2 artifact directly: End
> users need to specify our repo in their pom.xml explicity. this is a
> conscious decision.
>
> #2) End user using a regular Apache project that depends on incubator
> podling artifa
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Agreed. Once a release is out the only restrictions we place on it's
>> use and distribution should be the ASLv2.
>
> The Apache License does not give ASF projects carte blanche to
> ignore ASF policy.
But Jukka is right in t
On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> 1. central repo must be self contained, all artifacts in central
> repository must have dependencies already in central, only exception
> is if license doesn't allow redistribution but in that case the pom
> must be t
On 3/16/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But times change. Apparently now people think that since the
Incubator PMC has binding votes on podling releases, then these things
*are* indeed official releases, providing both the usual legal
protections to PMC members who voted for it,
On 17/03/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But times change. Apparently now people think that since the
Incubator PMC has binding votes on podling releases, then these things
*are* indeed official releases, providing both the usual legal
protections to PMC members who voted for it,
On 3/16/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/16/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, i lost you. this whole "we need podling artifacts in central
> repo" because right now you are putting our user through a meat
> grinder has no basis in fact. Am asking for JIRA is
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > To me, the Incubator is more and more like a virus, comparable to the
> > GPL. Upon entering, a project has to obey more and more conventions
> > and has lesser and lesser rights.
> Agreed. Once a release is out the only restrictions we place on i
On 3/16/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, i lost you. this whole "we need podling artifacts in central
repo" because right now you are putting our user through a meat
grinder has no basis in fact. Am asking for JIRA issues, email threads
that show that this is indeed a seriou
On Friday 16 March 2007 11:37, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> As I read it, Maven will REQUIRE each user to trust each
> artifact by approving the signing key.
Can't be serious...
Larger integration projects has hundreds if not thousands of artifacts, and
often with update cycles of 'daily' if not hour
On Mar 16, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
And remember that the release early, release often mantra can not
be applied on podlings, given the pain to release a project in
incubation.
I have a very different take on this. If a podling has difficulty
releasing as often as they w
Please see below:
On 3/16/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here they are:
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-608
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-838
http://www.nabble.com/Maven-repository-problem-tf2811096s12049.html#a7851593
http://www.nabble.com/WSDL-Firs
On 3/16/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While the incubator is a good idea, it seems that it is more difficult
to build a community inside the incubator
than outside, because of all the existing rules. And remember that the
release early, release often mantra can
not be applied on
Here they are:
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-608
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-838
http://www.nabble.com/Maven-repository-problem-tf2811096s12049.html#a7851593
http://www.nabble.com/WSDL-First-example-tf2373483s12049.html#a6612649
http://www.nabble.com/Installing-loa
Jochen,
#1) Woden should *NOT* be in the central repo. If you are responsible
for that, please work with repository@apache.org and remove it.
#2) Yes, our official build mechanism is still m1. Yes, we tested
removing woden completely. Axis2 works w/o woden.
thanks,
dims
On 3/16/07, Jochen Wied
On 3/16/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, i lost you. this whole "we need podling artifacts in central
repo" because right now you are putting our user through a meat
grinder has no basis in fact. Am asking for JIRA issues, email threads
that show that this is indeed a serio
Thanks. Exactly!
On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> So basically, the Incubator PMC now wants to start defining policies
> to control the actions of other top level Apache projects on how
> dependencies are made?
Dims is mooting an approach for how Incu
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> So basically, the Incubator PMC now wants to start defining policies
> to control the actions of other top level Apache projects on how
> dependencies are made?
Dims is mooting an approach for how Incubator artifacts can be used as a
best practice to balance increased ease of
Sorry, i lost you. this whole "we need podling artifacts in central
repo" because right now you are putting our user through a meat
grinder has no basis in fact. Am asking for JIRA issues, email threads
that show that this is indeed a serious issue and not just a made up
issue. Show me the evidenc
On 3/16/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please see #1 item here:
http://marc.info/?l=incubator-general&m=117397443306478&w=2
Did you read #5 as well? It contradicts your point.
--
Emacs 22 will support MacOS and CygWin. It is not yet decided, whether
these will be used to run
Dan,
Am talking about the question i asked here [1] as a follow up to your
observations here [2]. Not yet talking about a proposed plan.
[1] http://marc.info/?l=incubator-general&m=117397920113368&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=incubator-general&m=117397443306478&w=2
-- dims
On 3/16/07, Daniel Ku
Gwyn,
Please see #1 item here:
http://marc.info/?l=incubator-general&m=117397443306478&w=2
-- dims
On 3/16/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Surely there are no "actual instances" as yet, as this sub-thread's
about the effect of the suggested "provided" if it were
to be used...
/Gwyn
As Gwyn said, if we go the provided route, this issue
would come up. Since we haven't done that yet, there isn't an
instance. If we go that route, all the Axis/Geronimo/etc... developers
and users would be impacted, but no-one on projects outside of Apache
would be impacted at all as they
Surely there are no "actual instances" as yet, as this sub-thread's
about the effect of the suggested "provided" if it were
to be used...
/Gwyn
On 16/03/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel,
Before we take on the branding question. Can you please whip up some
actual instances
On 3/16/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we take on the branding question. Can you please whip up some
actual instances of where the ["less pleasant" for users of apache
project] happened/reported?
Do you have a rough estimation how many hours it had cost me to use
woden
Daniel,
Before we take on the branding question. Can you please whip up some
actual instances of where the ["less pleasant" for users of apache
project] happened/reported? Let's get some clarity here on what is
being done here...is it an effort to gain legitimacy w/o exiting
incubation or really
On 16/03/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What version are you using? X 1.1, X 2.0, or Apache X 1.0?
If push came to shove, X1.3-incubating0.1.3. It's not well thought out...
/Gwyn
--
Download Wicket 1.2.5 now! - http://wicketframework.org
-
On Friday 16 March 2007 10:06, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Incubator PMC will set guidelines for incubator projects and will set
> best practices (not obligatory) to other ASF projects. Everyone else
> can do what they want.
Right, but that again defeats the whole point of having the incubator
repo
On 3/16/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
but this opens up the question of whether apache is making the right
tradeoff between the risk of potental reputational damage due to poor
quality podling releases against actual reputational damage resulting
from this arrangement (whi
On 3/16/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i wonder whether versioning policies (all podling release versioned
0.x) may be more effective. someone using apache-podling-INCUBATING0.2
As far as I know, branding a release as 'incubating' has the same
impact as labeling it 'beta'
On 3/16/07, Johnson, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can't any ASL licensed artifact be posted to ibiblio?
yes
Does that fact not completely circumvent the whole intention of making a
separate
incubating repository?
no
making a separate incubation repository seemed like the right action
a
Incubator PMC will set guidelines for incubator projects and will set
best practices (not obligatory) to other ASF projects. Everyone else
can do what they want.
thanks,
dims
On 3/16/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So basically, the Incubator PMC now wants to start defining policies
So basically, the Incubator PMC now wants to start defining policies to
control the actions of other top level Apache projects on how
dependencies are made?
What about projects at codehaus.org? How about sourceforge? Google?
ObjectWeb?
I'll take Woden as an example. As pretty much the on
Noel,
Please see below:
On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set up their
> pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided mechanism), end
> users will have to add incubator repos explici
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> For projects in the central repository is a requirement that all
> dependencies are in central and no other repositories with releases
> are listed
This is a Maven policy? Justification(s)? The fact that Maven Repository
link on the Maven page leads to a page called "Gui
L licensed artifact be posted to ibiblio? Does that fact not
completely circumvent the whole intention of making a separate
incubating repository?
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:40 AM
> To: general@inc
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Killing the incubator m2 repository
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set
> up their
> > pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided
> me
Hi,
On 3/16/07, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To me, the Incubator is more and more like a virus, comparable to the
GPL. Upon entering, a project has to obey more and more conventions
and has lesser and lesser rights.
Agreed. Once a release is out the only restrictions we place on
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> 1. central repo must be self contained, all artifacts in central
> repository must have dependencies already in central, only exception
> is if license doesn't allow redistribution but in that case the pom
> must be there explaining what that artifact is.
This is a Maven r
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > 2. per #1 projects with incubating dependencies can't be in central
> Guys, this is going too far.
Hey, wait minute. What you just quoted is out of context, and has nothing
to do with the Incubator. Carlos said that this #is because "central r
On 3/15/07, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. per #1 projects with incubating dependencies can't be in central
Guys, this is going too far.
Suggest the following: There is a well known project, which would like
to join Apache. (Let's call it ActiveMQ, or ServiceMix, or whatever
goo
On 3/15/07, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. central repo must be self contained, all artifacts in central
repository must have dependencies already in central, only exception
is if license doesn't allow redistribution but in that case the pom
must be there explaining what that artif
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, both cases appear to be the same because in case #1, unless the
user is not part of collaborative effort, someone else could have added the
repository to the pom.xml for the project. Apparently, Maven doesn't
require the user to au
some Maven/repository details that I don't think were clear in previous threads:
1. central repo must be self contained, all artifacts in central
repository must have dependencies already in central, only exception
is if license doesn't allow redistribution but in that case the pom
must be there
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set up their
> pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided mechanism), end
> users will have to add incubator repos explicitly/consciously and
> won't get podling jars pulled in w/o their knowledge.
What's
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way* *way* *way* smarter
> > > about repositories.
> > Including delivering the long awaited security checks for downloa
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way* *way* *way* smarter
> > > about repositories.
> > Including delivering the long awaited security checks for downloaded
> > artifacts.
> Instead of casting stones, why not f
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > users should have to make an explicit decision to make use of
> > Incubator projects. As many users as want to make that
> > decision are welcome to do so, but yes, we do not want widespread,
> > unintentional, adoption by users who may be stuck (an
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce,
You may want to check with jvz. He is aware of the requirements. There
are several email threads on various lists. Though am note sure if
there is a specific JIRA was created.
Thanks, I'll have to ask him about it, because I'd real
Bruce,
You may want to check with jvz. He is aware of the requirements. There
are several email threads on various lists. Though am note sure if
there is a specific JIRA was created.
thanks,
dims
On 3/16/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set up their
pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided mechanism), end
users will have to add incubator repos explicitly/consciously and
won't get podling jars pulled in w/o their knowledge.
-- dims
On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way* *way* *way* smarter
> about repositories.
Including delivering the long awaited security checks for downloaded
artifacts.
Instead of casting stones, why not file is
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought that I had later clarified that, but let's give it another go.
First off, see the very first sentence. Second, the last sentence is the
goal: users should have to make an explicit decision to make use of
Incubator projects. As ma
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> #1) End user using an Incubator podling m2 artifact directly: End
> users need to specify our repo in their pom.xml explicity. this is
> a conscious decision.
> #2) End user using a regular Apache project that depends on incubator
> podling artifact
Actually, both cases
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> the message that completely, utterly threw me was Noel's message stating:
> 'As I said, it is about balance. The community that we most care about
> during Incubation is the developer community, not the end-user community.
I
> could go so far as to say that a bit of inconve
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way* *way* *way* smarter
> about repositories.
Including delivering the long awaited security checks for downloaded
artifacts.
--- Noel
-
To unsubsc
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Why must it be so difficult for users of the incubating projects?
Because people make the assumption that they can count on ASF projects to
deliver a level of community, quality, and logenvity. They *count* on us,
and we want to protect them *and* our brand/reputation.
Whe
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> as more incubator projects start using maven and deploying artifacts,
> this number should rise.
Well, we could just refer them to http://ant.apache.org, rather than
suggesting that Maven cures what (or anything ;-)) that ails them. Tastes
great, less filling, and all that.
Noel,
There are 2 ways here
#1) End user using an Incubator podling m2 artifact directly: End
users need to specify our repo in their pom.xml explicity. this is a
conscious decision.
#2) End user using a regular Apache project that depends on incubator
podling artifact: End users won't have to
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > We've discussed this many times before, and so far the consensus has
been
> > to not conflate the Incubator artifacts with regular ASF artifacts. I
am
> > still -1 to conflating ASF artifacts with incubator artifacts, but
that's
> > just my view.
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > As I understand it, so please correct me if I am wrong, if I download
> > a program that builds using Maven, and it has dependencies in its
> > pom.xml on Incubator artifiacts, then if Incubator artifacts are
> > conflated with ASF artifacts, then wh
> Where does this leave a project that enters to the Incubator with a
> user community already? Further, where does this leave a project that
> has been in the Incubator long enough to have developed a user
> community?
I know the answer to the second question is graduation - but what
about the f
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> Please see below:
>
> Draft Policy(?):
> http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
>
> Thread:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11566972785&r=1&w=2
>
> First email:
>
Bruce,
We are not making it impossible for them to use...just making it a bit
conscious decision and flick a few switches.
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce,
Please see below:
Draft Policy(?):
http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
Thread:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11566972785&r=1&w=2
First email:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115669716709268&w=2
Sorry Dan, I apologize. Bruce, thanks for setting me straight.
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> thanks for being the amazing fount of wisdom and berating our "silly
> idea." Please see below.
>
> On 3/
FWIW, on the incubating projects I've helped with AFAIR there's never been
anyone who complained the separate incubator repository was confusing or
caused any problems. Also, most of the time we build in offline mode so the
performance of the separate repository isn't really an issue.
There is on
Bruce,
Please see below:
Draft Policy(?):
http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
Thread:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11566972785&r=1&w=2
First email:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115669716709268&w=2
Please read this email:
http://marc.info/?l=incubator-ge
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan,
thanks for being the amazing fount of wisdom and berating our "silly
idea." Please see below.
On 3/15/07, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "It's even knowing th
Dan,
thanks for being the amazing fount of wisdom and berating our "silly
idea." Please see below.
On 3/15/07, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
>
> [DIMS] This is by design
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
[DIMS] This is by design.
As everyone else is saying, its a silly design. The version/artifactId
clearly as "incubator" in it. People know they're using an incubating
project.
" it
Sounds like the right questions Hen.
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll go ahead and kick off a new thread for this in a couple of hours.
It seems to me we have two questions, though in my view they relate to
the same topic.
Topic: Should we treat incubator
I guess we should have a VOTE and document the policy then :)
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
>
> [DIMS] This is by design.
It's by design to add additio
I'll go ahead and kick off a new thread for this in a couple of hours.
It seems to me we have two questions, though in my view they relate to
the same topic.
Topic: Should we treat incubator releases differently to normal releases.
Question: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
[DIMS] This is by design.
It's by design to add additional repos, it's by undocumented policy
that the Incubator has a separate repo.
" it's pinging that repo every time you build l
On 3/15/07, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But by making it difficult, you are making it much more likely that the
> project will get killed/nuked. You're basically making it difficult
> for the project to grow their community j
"It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
[DIMS] This is by design.
" it's pinging that repo every time you build looking for every other
artifact"
[DIMS] Please file a maven2 bug report for this.
"it's not having any alternative when the people.apache.org is
inaccessible (and thi
On Thursday 15 March 2007 12:26, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Also, are you advocating that all incubator snapshots go to the
> central repo??? you will have #2 and #3 anyways even if we publish the
> released artifacts to central repo.
God no. SNAPSHOTs either stay at apache (but work with infrastr
Hi,
On 3/15/07, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wait a sec there. Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way*
*way* *way* smarter about repositories. This situation is partly
Maven's own doing and their refusal to deal with a collection of
(mirrored) repositories intelligently.
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5 extra minutes to add an additional entry in a pom.xml is not going
to kill anyone. Can you please point me to email queries from end
users on the podling mailing lists where they say that this was a
pain? Give me a break!
But it's not ju
Amen! Dan, time to use the new maven karma :)
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But by making it difficult, you are making it much more likely that the
> project will get killed/nuked. You're basically making
Bruce,
can you show me a single podling web site where they provide guidance
on how exactly to use the podling artifacts? and hence "overcome the
ill-documentation" caused by the incubator process. Anyone who has
even barely touched m2 knows how to add a new repo to his pom.xml so
this is a non-i
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But by making it difficult, you are making it much more likely that the
project will get killed/nuked. You're basically making it difficult
for the project to grow their community just to make it easier to kill
the community later if it fails.
5 extra minutes to add an additional entry in a pom.xml is not going
to kill anyone. Can you please point me to email queries from end
users on the podling mailing lists where they say that this was a
pain? Give me a break!
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But by maki
But by making it difficult, you are making it much more likely that the
project will get killed/nuked. You're basically making it difficult
for the project to grow their community just to make it easier to kill
the community later if it fails.
I'd prefer to give the projects the benefit o
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because projects get killed/nuked as they don't have enough legs to
stand on literally. You are assuming that every project makes it. It
doesn't. We have to let people know that they are making a conscious
choice by making it difficult.
I'
Jukka,
I asked exactly the same question:
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg09832.html
And the answer:
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg09864.html
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[E
n 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#1) This is by design. We don't want to make it easy.
This is what I really don't understand. Why must it be so difficult
for users of the incubating projects?
Daniel's summation of the situation is very accurate. All the separate
reposito
Because projects get killed/nuked as they don't have enough legs to
stand on literally. You are assuming that every project makes it. It
doesn't. We have to let people know that they are making a conscious
choice by making it difficult.
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Hi,
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5) Having them separate from central really only annoys those who
actually want to use the official apache versions. For my customers, I
could easily create a com.dankulp:orb:1.0 pom that just depends on yoko
from the incubator repository.
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#4) is a problem. We can address it say by asking infra to rsync it to
say the eu boxes
No. If it needs to get mirrored, then it goes out via the standard
systems: i.e. via www.apache.org. But, people.a.o is purposely not
mirrored - main
All it tells me is that m2 is broken and there needs to be a way to
say don't look in this repo for stuff available elsewhere. looks like
a JIRA entry to me :)
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 12:00, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> 3) Load on p.a.o. Be
Also, are you advocating that all incubator snapshots go to the
central repo??? you will have #2 and #3 anyways even if we publish the
released artifacts to central repo.
One more thing, If you are end user downloading a released incubator
artifact, how many times does maven down load it into the
On Thursday 15 March 2007 12:00, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> 3) Load on p.a.o. Because of (2), it can be a lot of traffic on
> p.a.o. Most will result in 404 errors, but still, that's a lot of
> uneeded connections.
Just to quantify this. Yesterday, there were 70957 GET requests from
the m2-incubati
#1) This is by design. We don't want to make it easy.
#2 and #3) i don't really have anything to day.
#4) is a problem. We can address it say by asking infra to rsync it to
say the eu boxes
#5) I really hope you don't do this :)
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On
On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:33, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Could you please summarize the "difficulties"/"inconvenience" in the
> current status quo?
There are a few main issues:
1) Finding stuff - when a user is searching for the groupId/artifactId
of something, they generally just go look in
On Thursday 15 March 2007 04:26, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> We've discussed this many times before, and so far the consensus has been
> to not conflate the Incubator artifacts with regular ASF artifacts. I am
> still -1 to conflating ASF artifacts with incubator artifacts, but that's
> just my view.
Daniel,
Could you please summarize the "difficulties"/"inconvenience" in the
current status quo?
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:12, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > > Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > > My personal op
On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:12, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > > Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > > My personal opinion is that an "incubator" in the groupId or
> > > > artifactId would be more than sufficient to mark the Incubator
> > > > status
> >
> > The version attribute is
Hi,
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I understand it, so please correct me if I am wrong, if I download a
program that builds using Maven, and it has dependencies in its pom.xml on
Incubator artifiacts, then if Incubator artifacts are conflated with ASF
artifacts, then w
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > My personal opinion is that an "incubator" in the groupId or
> > > artifactId would be more than sufficient to mark the Incubator status
> The version attribute is more appropriate IMO, and what was agreed
> upon in an earlier thread on this
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
