Sorry for this lengthy response, but I got a negative vibe from
several reactions to this thread and I feel a need to vent my
concerns.
First I am a big fan of Apache and the Apache community. I think that
the way Apache works is a great example of how a community effort can
produce great softwar
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Sorry for this lengthy response, but I got a negative vibe from
> several reactions to this thread and I feel a need to vent my
> concerns.
>
> First I am a big fan of Apache and the Apache community. I think that
> the way Apache works is a great example of how a communi
I'll start by saying I'm not deeply involved in the roadmap plans, so
pay more attention to the other devs, but this seems a possible
position to me, i.e.
All source hosted at ASF, lists & web moved to ASF.
- 1.2.x
Continue in maintainance/bug-fix mode
'wicket.*' package name
'wick
You say "One of those is to be able to build releases for our
community": do you mean that you are unhappy with the stated need to
release from Apache and mark with "Incubating" (i.e. you want to release
1.x from SF)? Or if you were to bring the 1.x branches over to Apache,
would you be prepared t
You summarized my thoughts exactly :-)
Martijn
On 7/31/06, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll start by saying I'm not deeply involved in the roadmap plans, so
pay more attention to the other devs, but this seems a possible
position to me, i.e.
All source hosted at ASF, lists & web mo
On 7/31/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/30/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * the MANIFEST files should comply with the various java standards on
> this matter. these are really a long way away so i can't list just a
> few corrections. creating compl
I think this vote is passed with +1's from Robert Burrell Donkin, Dims, Bill
Stoddard and Sanjiva. No -1's
Thank you.
--
Pete
Pete
I know its late but here's my +1 to add to the list!
Paul
On 7/31/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this vote is passed with +1's from Robert Burrell Donkin, Dims, Bill
Stoddard and Sanjiva. No -1's
Thank you.
--
Pete
--
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASI
On Jul 29, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal?
- There was also the question about how the AMQP specification will be
handled and licensed. I started this thread with my feelings about
that aspect (short version: it looks better
Hey Robert,
Thanks for the excellent feedback. At this point I believe we've
addressed all of the issues you raised and should be re-roll the zips
shortly.
- James
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/26/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Abdera podling has reached a point where
The Naming section of the Branding Guidelines states (among other
things) that
...podling MUST be referred to as Apache "Podling-Name" AND mention
that the project is under Incubation. Suitable mentions include:
* Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name"; URL
* Apache
On Jul 31, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Is it intended that either of the two mentions (specifically just
the URL) satisfy this requirement? I.e., that something like this
be sufficient on a third party web page that discusses the project:
http://incubator.apache.org/podling-name"
On 7/31/06, Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is it intended that either of the two mentions (specifically just
the URL) satisfy this requirement? I.e., that something like this
be sufficient on a third party web page that discusses the project:
http://incubator.apache.org/podling-n
On 7/31/06, sophitia que <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/31/06, Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is it intended that either of the two mentions (specifically just
> the URL) satisfy this requirement? I.e., that something like this
> be sufficient on a third party web page that disc
we have updated the versions section of our proposal to reflect this. please
review and lets discuss, basically we would like to incubate 1.3 as well as
2.0.
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal
-Igor
On 7/31/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You summarized my though
On 7/26/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Don! Thanks Upayavira, Alexa, Sylvain, Timothy and the others
that have officially or unofficially championed Wicket. We hope that
Wicket will make a valuable addition to Apache, and we are looking
forward to get to know you guys bett
On 7/24/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course the bridge from async to servlets is the really difficult part!
(which is why we should do away with servlets *ducks*)
I'm ducking with you Leo! Doing away with servlets is fine by me. AsyncWeb
with MINA's underlying architecture
On 7/27/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As releases marked as incubated will probably
raise an eyebrow or two, what are our options?...
Seen from another angle, releases marked "incubating" are a great way
to help make your community aware of what's happening. Along with a
On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF
Big +1 here. I've been looking at Wicket recently, and from a
technical point of view I like what I see *a lot*.
Your desc
On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF
BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor.
I'm not (yet) using Wicket though, so others might be be
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF
BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor.
I'm not (yet) using Wicket
On 7/31/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/31/06, sophitia que <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/31/06, Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it intended that either of the two mentions (specifically just
> > the URL) satisfy this requirement? I.e., that somet
On 7/23/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/22/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
(no change in policy was meant - hopefully that was c
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-39?page=comments#action_12424683
]
Craig Russell commented on INCUBATOR-39:
Acceptance By Incubator
Upon a successful result, the PMC Chair of the Sponsor SHOULD
request the Inc
+1 (non-binding) for all three. I've commented on /INCUBATOR-39 but
vote in favor regardless of the resolution.
Craig
On Jul 29, 2006, at 2:44 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
a few more changes that i think that policy neutral (please jump in if
i am mistaken)
i'm +1to all
- robert
--8<-
hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope you
realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like
refactoring :)
-Igor
On 7/31/06, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Second that. Though we should be pretty near beta and a more stable
API. I think models are the last part we're debating right now. We
plan to stabilize 2.0's API within the next two months.
Eelco
On 7/31/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wick
James Strachan wrote:
> Right now its hurting users of incubating projects not to have a maven
> 2 repository of the actual releases made by the projects.
Most users should not be using Incubator code. Only those who are committed
and willing to trust that the project will do well here and event
> i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then
> wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating says "not ready for
> production use".
Keep in mind that the Incubator has very little interest in users using the
code. Our focus is entirely on developers, and users are "interesting" onl
> could someone please remove the line in
>/www/people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository/README.txt
> saying
> - no artifacts are allowed from projects under incubation
Uh, no.
Which part of Incubation is not about making life easy for end users hasn't
sunk in for everyone?
Most users should not be using Incubator code. Only those who are committed
and willing to trust that the project will do well here and eventually
become an ASF project.
Remember that most people don't believe that Incubator projects should even
have a user@ list, only a dev@ list.
I'm new to
i am getting a lot of mixed messages here. we have been told that
-incubating is nothing more then a tag that the project is in the incubator
and does not at all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness for
production use, but following is the opposite view taken from the maven2
repo t
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> In general, what I recommend projects to do is follow what SA did
Keep in mind that SA *had* to do it, because they had licensing problems
with their earlier code.
As a general thing, it would be best for the developer community if they
could have all of their code in
This seems a little ridiculous.
What point is there in having something incubated if there are no users?
What sort of a community would it be that didn't accept feedback and
evolve based on that feedback?
How many users are willing to wait 6+ months to use something just
because it is undergoing
Craig,
> The main point for me is that you are forking the Wicket code to
> create the Apache project, and intent is everything. If you're
> planning on actively developing in the old community, I'd question
> the decision to come to Apache.
It is a transition phase. As with sensory systems, lim
Leo Simons wrote:
> Its a little bit itchy to read about "complying with rules" or about "who
> decides". When you get right down to it, legally, the person who decides
> is the VP. And I can count on the fingers of 0 hands how many times he
> laid down the law here in incubator land!
To be clear
> synapse
> http://incubator.apache.org/synapse/download.cgi
> is being mirrored.
Incubator code should not be on www.apache.org/dist. Only official ASF
releases are permitted to be there. Our stuff should be under
people.apache.org/dist/incubator/${podling}.
Remember: we're not trying to mak
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> What would you think ... purely as talking points ... if the code for
Wicket
> came over to our SVN, and ...
Actually, what I wrote seems to be similar to what the Wicket folks put into
the wiki earlier today, but theirs has more detail.
--- Noel
-
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> Noel J Bergman wrote:
> > Most users should not be using Incubator code. Only those who are
committed
> > and willing to trust that the project will do well here and eventually
> > become an ASF project.
Keep in mind that I am referring to code in that is in, and being
Dion,
> What point is there in having something incubated if there are no users?
We're talking about a balance, and most specifically about ensuring that
only users who have made a specific and informed decision are using the code
while it is still in the Incubator. The Apache brand has a value
So the solution that best corresponds to this is an incubation repository.
http://people.apache.org/maven-repository-incubator/
(this could well be incubator.apache.org/maven-repository or whatever)
Then:
org.apache.activemq
activemq
4.0.1-incubated
None of this will be uploaded to Ibi
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> we have been told that -incubating is nothing more then a
> tag that the project is in the incubator and does not at
> all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness
> for production use
It is not a comment on the code quality at all, but it is a comment on
whethe
from wicket's point of view we are not really concerned with the
"brand abuse" that much. we are in no hurry to convert our packages to
org.apache.wicket and in no hurry to call our releases apache wicket.
what we are concerned about is having a way to provide wicket releases
to our existing userb
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. :-)
> None of this will be uploaded to Ibiblio (and Maven will deny requests
> to do so).
> Note that in the case that a proj
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.
Maven repositories offer two main benefits:
1) Access to POMs for automatic artifact metadata like further
dependencies etc.
2) Access to t
45 matches
Mail list logo
