Thanks Cliff! Getting feedback from you on these issues would be a nice
bonus for us. I think the main thing is that, along the lines of Noel's
comments and advice, if you see anything the Beehive project can do to
better apply ASF principles, it would be great for us to hear it. This
kind o
Thanks Cliff! Getting feedback from you on these issues would be a nice bonus
for us. I think the main thing is that, along the lines of Noel's comments and
advice, if you see anything the Beehive project can do to better apply ASF
principles, it would be great for us to hear it. This kind of
Thanks Cliff! Getting feedback from you on these issues would be a nice
bonus for us. I think the main thing is that, along the lines of Noel's
comments and advice, if you see anything the Beehive project can do to
better apply ASF principles, it would be great for us to hear it. This
kind of f
On 6/11/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Feit wrote:
> > This is just a case where we need all the input we can get.
>
> We'll see if we can get some additional mentoring for you. I believe that
> we'll have another volunteer to also spend time helping beehive along. :-)
Richard Feit wrote:
> > > we need all the guidance we can get in achieving that.
> >
> > How has it been going? Have you had input from the project Mentor(s)?
>
> Definitely. Craig (McClanahan) has chimed in publicly and privately,
> with both solicited and unsolicited advice. He's been great a
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Richard Feit wrote:
it would be very healthy for us to focus solely on exiting
the Incubator. We are totally committed to building a real
dev community around Beehive
Neither of those was in doubt. :-)
we need all the guidance we can get in achieving tha
Richard Feit wrote:
> it would be very healthy for us to focus solely on exiting
> the Incubator. We are totally committed to building a real
> dev community around Beehive
Neither of those was in doubt. :-)
> we need all the guidance we can get in achieving that.
How has it been going? Have
It seems like adding "Incubating" to the name of the release would
prevent this from smelling like official ASF code, or even from smelling
like fully-baked code. I think we're all for that -- our main goal is
to fulfill the requirements for exiting the Incubator, not to languish
there doing n
On 6/8/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, versioning schemes such as:
>
> M.mQB
>
> where M == major, m == minor, Q in [D:Development, A:Alpha, B:Beta,
> R:Release], and B == Build# encode the release type. I supposed that 1.0m1
> represents a milestone.
>
> In any event, I
Richard Feit wrote:
> I've been a bit hung up on the idea that since Derby has done several
> "official releases" from within the Incubator (e.g., Version 10.0.2.1 at
> http://incubator.apache.org/derby/derby_downloads.html#Official+Releases
I can appreciate that view. I hadn't noticed the use o
Richard Feit wrote:
> I've been a bit hung up on the idea that since Derby has done several
> "official releases" from within the Incubator (e.g., Version 10.0.2.1 at
> http://incubator.apache.org/derby/derby_downloads.html#Official+Releases
> ), Beehive should be able to do the same thing. I thi
I've been a bit hung up on the idea that since Derby has done several
"official releases" from within the Incubator (e.g., Version 10.0.2.1 at
http://incubator.apache.org/derby/derby_downloads.html#Official+Releases
), Beehive should be able to do the same thing. I think a lot of us
have been
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> It just doesn't make sense to me to tell a community that believes it
has
>>> a "1.0" quality product that they have to call it a "test snapshot".
>>
>> Demo? Technology preview? Milestone? Happy Meal?
>
> If we are keeping a project in incubati
On 6/7/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It just doesn't make sense to me to tell a community that believes it has
>> a "1.0" quality product that they have to call it a "test snapshot".
>
> Demo? Technology preview? Milestone? Happy Meal?
All of those terms (or at least the fi
On 07.06.2005, at 22:48, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Demo? Technology preview? Milestone? Happy Meal?
Look, maybe this is hard to understand, especially if people are
coming from
an enviroment focused on code quality first, but this isn't about
the state
of the code. It is about the state of
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> >
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Exit+R
equirements
> > Note: incubator projects are not permitted to issue an official
Release.
> > Test snapshots (however good the quality) and Release plans are OK.
On 6/7/05, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Exit+Requirements
>
>
> Note: incubator projects are not permitted to issue an official Release.
> Test snapshots (however good the quality) and Release plans are OK
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Here is my opinion on the whole release issue, which has not changed
> in 18 months since the first big discussion of releases and incubation
> branding.
[snip]
Maybe folks are confused by this sentence in the 'Minimum Exit
Requirements' section.
http://incubator.apache.
Here is my opinion on the whole release issue, which has not changed
in 18 months since the first big discussion of releases and incubation
branding.
Full Disclosure: While this is my opinion as a member of the
Incubator PMC, it is not necessarily the consensus of the PMC. In
addition, I was onc
CIL...
> > If I'm messing up terminology
>
> Oh, the terminology got messed up long ago. LOL :-) Even the term
> "Release" has different connotations. It is neutral in the HTTP Server
> project (beta and GA releases, for example), whereas Jakarta refers to
> Nightly builds, Milestone builds
Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> I've heard a couple of times that it's not possible to do a -final
> release from the Incubator, but I've also heard some suggest that
> it could be possible.
It should not be done, by definition of being in the Incubator.
> Didn't Derby do one of these in December 2004 as
On May 30, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
Comments in-line...
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 29, 2005, at 8:21 AM, Eddie ONeil wrote:
But, I do think that we should complete the current milestone
release in order to get something new out there.
+1
If you are calling this a
CIL...
Leo Simons wrote:
On 31-05-2005 03:51, "Eddie O'Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've heard a couple of times that it's not possible to do a -final
release from the Incubator, but I've also heard some suggest that it
could be possible.
Nope.
Okay, so I take it there's a differ
On 31-05-2005 03:51, "Eddie O'Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've heard a couple of times that it's not possible to do a -final
> release from the Incubator, but I've also heard some suggest that it
> could be possible.
Nope.
>Didn't Derby do one of these in December 2004 as per:
>
>
Noel--
I've heard a couple of times that it's not possible to do a -final
release from the Incubator, but I've also heard some suggest that it
could be possible.
Didn't Derby do one of these in December 2004 as per:
http://incubator.apache.org/derby/derby_downloads.html#Official+Releases
Comments in-line...
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 29, 2005, at 8:21 AM, Eddie ONeil wrote:
All--
There has been some confusion publicly and privately about the JSR
181 TCK issues and the WSM part of Beehive.
The goals of WSM are to implement the JSR 181 specification and to
provid
Geir wrote:
> Eddie ONeil wrote:
> > I do think that we should complete the current milestone
> > release in order to get something new out there.
> If you are calling this a milestone increment rather than a real
> "we're complete and support this" release
Which they have to do anyway, since Bee
On May 29, 2005, at 8:21 AM, Eddie ONeil wrote:
All--
There has been some confusion publicly and privately about the JSR
181 TCK issues and the WSM part of Beehive.
The goals of WSM are to implement the JSR 181 specification and to
provide a generic annotation processor for the 181 annota
All--
There has been some confusion publicly and privately about the JSR
181 TCK issues and the WSM part of Beehive.
The goals of WSM are to implement the JSR 181 specification and to
provide a generic annotation processor for the 181 annotations. In
addition, there is a layer that implement
29 matches
Mail list logo
