The Trinidad community voted to release its "core" (the JSF component set)
as a 1.0.0-incubating release. To fulfill the incubator guides, we
like to ask you guys, the Incubator PMC, for a permission to release
those jsf components.
There were seven +1 votes and the vote has been tracked at [1].
Justin,
From previous experience as mentor, i can safely say that it is very
easy to push out releases by getting a few incubator pmc votes than it
is to attract new committers and more importantly keep them engaged.
Am afraid we are removing that incentive. What are we going to do
about projec
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
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
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, 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 Mar 15, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus
mirrors).
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
-1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
+0 (who cares about maven? ;)
pursuing eternal enli
On 16/03/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[X] +1
[ ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[X] -1
I'm off the opinion that the "-incubating" tag is sufficient to flag
this status to
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
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
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
Can't any ASL 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@incu
Please read this thread in its entirety. We've thrashed this topic to
death before.
http://marc.info/?l=incubator-general&m=115699792628108&w=2
http://marc.info/?t=11566972785&r=1&w=2
-- dims
On 3/16/07, Johnson, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can't any ASL licensed artifact be posted to
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
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
Hi,
On 3/15/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[ X ] +1
[ ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
[ X ] 0 -- don't care
We make open-source software, an
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
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
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
+1..
Mvgr,
Martin
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> The Trinidad community voted to release its "core" (the JSF component set)
> as a 1.0.0-incubating release. To fulfill the incubator guides, we
> like to ask you guys, the Incubator PMC, for a permission to release
> those jsf components.
>
> There
On 3/15/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
+1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
-1
Vote to last a week. Unless people are bored of re
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, 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 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 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
-
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 3/15/07, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/16/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> using the normal Apache distribution network to make them available,
> and (for Maven users) not even making it visible that you're using a
> non-official release because they d
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
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, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Some Apache folks are violating our own rules by pushing
these artifacts into our own dist directory (which gets mirrored
there).
Guilty. I have personally uploaded Woden jar files. And I see no
reason why I should stop doing so. T
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Two parts to the vote:
>
> ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] -1
0
> TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] -1
0
I'm straddling the fence because I can see valid arguments for both si
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
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
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
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
On Friday 16 March 2007 10:55, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In other words, your intention that users have "to configure any
> > repository" is lost. You cannot prevent that. Or are you telling me
> > that the owner of the incubator artifacts
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
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
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > * Some Apache folks are violating our own rules by pushing
> > these artifacts into our own dist directory (which gets mirrored
> > there).
> Guilty. I have personally uploaded Woden jar files. And I see no
> reason why I should stop doing
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
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
On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ASL may give you the right as an individual to do something with the code,
but it does not give you the right, as an ASF Committer, to violate ASF
policy. Nor the right to distribute something as an ASF artifact that is
not one.
As I alre
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, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Craig, the point is that downstream users may not be required to add a
setting. If I depend on A, and A depends on IncubatorB, I
would get IncubatorB without needing a setting if the pom
for A has that setting in it.
An argument for dumpin
Looks like the request from Jochen was already acted upon.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg62065.html
thanks,
dims
On 3/16/07, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ASL may give you the right as an individual to
On 3/16/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is everyone in ASF willing to be comfortable with the ASF stamp of
approval on a project that might still be in the process of vetting
code provenance, or still checking licenses, but chooses to do an
incubating release anyway?
Hell No!.
On Mar 16, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
Is everyone in ASF willing to be comfortable with the ASF stamp of
approval on a project that might still be in the process of vetting
code provenance, or still checking licenses, but chooses to do an
incubating release anyway?
As Dims, said
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
On 3/16/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The policy I'm most concerned with in this thread is whether
incubating project releases are "official" Apache releases, that
provide the ASF legal protections to the authors, and assurances to
the downstream users that ASF has done its usua
We're using -Mn (milestone) suffixes in Geronimo. In the release
notes we specifically cal out this is not a certified version but a
work in progress.
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
As long as you mark it as UNTESTED or BETA per the JAX-WS part -
IOW, make no clai
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
Jean
I too am straddling the fence. I also think that the main point is to
have a clear distinction between incubator releases and project
releases.
I do wonder if having a separate repository is generally easier for
systems like http://www.jfrog.org/sites/artifactory/latest/ or
enterprise build
I think I should perhaps have asked the attached question here ...
-- Forwarded message --
From: kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16-Mar-2007 16:44
Subject: New dependency on GroboUtils, and hence MIT license
To: tuscany-dev
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1
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
Hi,
On 3/16/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is everyone in ASF willing to be comfortable with the ASF stamp of
approval on a project that might still be in the process of vetting
code provenance, or still checking licenses, but chooses to do an
incubating release anyway?
I don'
Henri Yandell wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
-1.
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
+1.
IMO incubating projects are not yet ASF projects. As such it makes no
sense to m
On 3/16/07, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 3/16/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is everyone in ASF willing to be comfortable with the ASF stamp of
> approval on a project that might still be in the process of vetting
> code provenance, or still checking licenses
Craig McClanahan wrote:
> The policy I'm most concerned with in this thread is whether
> incubating project releases are "official" Apache releases, that
> provide the ASF legal protections to the authors, and assurances to
> the downstream users that ASF has done its usual vetting of these
> relea
Craig McClanahan wrote:
> we have a bunch of other hoops that we still force on incubating
> podlings that should be removed as well.
Such as?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional command
IBM and Covalent have donated a JBoss to Geronimo (J2G) application
conversion tool to the Apache Geronimo project.
- The code was uploaded to Jira issue GERONIMO-2743. [1]
- The Geronimo vote to accept the contribution passed. [2]
- The IBM and Covalent grants for the J2G Migration toolset have
Also straddling the fence, but have thought about this a lot. After
seeing the release process for incubating projects, I'd say that they
get sufficient scrutiny compared to TLP releases. So we're not
putting Apache in a bad legal position by releasing incubating
software. The only danger i
Paul McMahan wrote:
> consensus if no -1 votes are cast within the next 48 hours.
The convention is 72 hours; three days is a constant factor that
accounts for weekends and other real-life issue.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Incubator releases are considerably different from those of every other ASF
PMC. A ASF Community is expected to stand behind and maintain its releases.
But even those communities can dry out and grind to a halt. It is not
that the foundati
Thanks for pointing that out. Please consider the time frame extended
to the conventional 72 hours.
Best wishes,
Paul
On 3/16/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul McMahan wrote:
> consensus if no -1 votes are cast within the next 48 hours.
The convention is 72 hours; thre
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Paul McMahan wrote:
>
>>consensus if no -1 votes are cast within the next 48 hours.
>
> The convention is 72 hours; three days is a constant factor that
> accounts for weekends and other real-life issue.
The 48 hours comes from step 7 in the ip clearance template:
+1 from me. (48->72)
On 3/16/07, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Paul McMahan wrote:
>
>>consensus if no -1 votes are cast within the next 48 hours.
>
> The convention is 72 hours; three days is a constant factor that
> accounts for weekends and other r
Hi,
I am looking for some potential ideas to start a new project. Any
suggestions?
Thanks and Regards,
Ambi.
MIT is an authorized license. It shouldn't be an issue so long as you
include the correct NOTICE entry.
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
[I think there's a newer location for this document but I don't have it handy]
On 3/16/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I s
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Paul McMahan wrote:
>>
>>> consensus if no -1 votes are cast within the next 48 hours.
>> The convention is 72 hours; three days is a constant factor that
>> accounts for weekends and other real-life issue.
>
> The 48 hours comes from step
On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 3/16/07, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 3/16/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is everyone in ASF willing to be comfortable with the ASF stamp of
> approval on a project that might still be in the process
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
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 Friday 16 March 2007 21:22, Gwyn Evans wrote:
> On 16/03/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
Yes.
> > TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
No.
(Justin's notation, as +1/-1 is confusing.)
>
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
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Incubator releases are considerably different from those of every
> > other ASF PMC. A ASF Community is expected to stand behind and
> > maintain its releases.
> But even those communities can dry out and grind to a halt. It is not
> that the
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, 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
77 matches
Mail list logo
