Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 9/13/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> however IMO the IP clearance document should still be created and
>> committed so that it's easy to track the origins of the code.
>> questions about provinence can sometimes be raised years later and it
>
On 9/13/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
however IMO the IP clearance document should still be created and
committed so that it's easy to track the origins of the code.
questions about provinence can sometimes be raised years later and it
has sometimes proved difficult to trac
On 9/12/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/12/06, Raphaël Luta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Discussions have already happened in both the Grafitto and the
> Jackrabbit communities to "move" development of the JCR mapping
> functionality into the Jaskrabbit community and the fee
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 17:30, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> So from the Incubator
> point of view this would be an IP clearance rather than a graduation
> process.
Raphaël says IP clearance is all done and well, so follow Justin's advice...
Cheers
Niclas
On 9/12/06, Raphaël Luta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Discussions have already happened in both the Grafitto and the
Jackrabbit communities to "move" development of the JCR mapping
functionality into the Jaskrabbit community and the feedback seemed
positive on both ends.
Generally, if both commun
On 9/12/06, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 9/12/06, Raphaël Luta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original plan was to graduate Graffitto into Portals since the
> orignial submission was strongly tied to Jetspeed.
> Since then, the evolution of code and community make me feel th
Hi,
On 9/12/06, Raphaël Luta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The original plan was to graduate Graffitto into Portals since the
orignial submission was strongly tied to Jetspeed.
Since then, the evolution of code and community make me feel that
Portals would *not* be the best home for Grafitto.
The
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 September 2006 17:07, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
>>No. As I wrote (emphasis added):
>>
>>"to move the codebase *and* to bring the mapping tool
>>developers in as Jackrabbit committers"
>>
>>The purpose is not to change who is actually working on the code,
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's recently been interest within both the Graffito and Jackrabbit
> communities to graduate a part of the incubating Apache Graffito
> project, an object-to-content mapping tool called Graffito JCR
> Mapping, into a part of the Apache Jackrabbit TLP. This move w
Hi,
On 9/12/06, David Nuescheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there is no precedent that we could align with, then we possibly
could look at this particular case just like any other code contribution.
Which would mean that the current committers would contribute
their code to the Jackrabbit co
Hi,
On 9/12/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 17:07, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> The purpose is not to change who is actually working on the code, but
> to bring the development into a community that probably has more
> willing and able new users and contribut
David Nuescheler wrote:
> Hi Jukka,
>
> Just a random thought.
>
>> "to move the codebase *and* to bring the mapping tool
>> developers in as Jackrabbit committers"
>
> This is probably stating the obvious (my apologies):
>
> If there is no precedent that we could align with, then we po
Hi Jukka,
Just a random thought.
"to move the codebase *and* to bring the mapping tool
developers in as Jackrabbit committers"
This is probably stating the obvious (my apologies):
If there is no precedent that we could align with, then we possibly
could look at this particular case j
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 17:07, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> No. As I wrote (emphasis added):
>
> "to move the codebase *and* to bring the mapping tool
> developers in as Jackrabbit committers"
>
> The purpose is not to change who is actually working on the code, but
> to bring the developmen
Hi,
On 9/12/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, if the Graffito project were to grant the code to Jackrabbit, with
no new committers joining Jackrabbit alongside the code, then you're
talking about an IP clearance process, and, to my mind, it is pretty
much the same as a project being
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/12/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 12 September 2006 05:52, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> > Would this work in terms of the Incubator policies? Do we need some
>> > other steps along the way, or can we streamline the process somehow?
>>
>>
Hi,
On 9/12/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 05:52, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Would this work in terms of the Incubator policies? Do we need some
> other steps along the way, or can we streamline the process somehow?
No, this is not what incubation is abou
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 05:52, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Would this work in terms of the Incubator policies? Do we need some
> other steps along the way, or can we streamline the process somehow?
No, this is not what incubation is about. You have two main goals to reach
before talking graduatio
18 matches
Mail list logo
