Jukka,
My guess is this issue will keep coming up *TILL* the folks who want
this to happen get their way! sigh! :(
-- dims
On 6/26/08, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So far, despite lots of discussion, we haven't come up with a
> consensus on this issue. I plan to start a maj
JSecurity also meets condition b)
Our users will scream bloody murder if they can no longer access
JSecurity from the central repository. So we'll continue to publish
there, even if it means publishing under the old org.jsecurity group
id.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAI
I'll just append that I, and I'm sure the huge majority of people in
the world that use Maven, would find it incredibly irritating if
incubator releases were not automatically available in the central
repository.
So a huge +1 to enable this.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JSecurity also meets condition b)
>
> Our users will scream bloody murder if they can no longer access
> JSecurity from the central repository. So we'll continue to publish
> there, even if it means publishing under the ol
Martijn,
This is excellent feedback, thanks very much!
That being said, it would make everyone's lives easier if incubator
releases were in the central repository, so I still vote +1 on that ;)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My guess is this issue will keep coming up *TILL* the folks who want
> this to happen get their way! sigh! :(
That's why I plan to call a vote on the matter. That should close the issue.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Hi Martijn,
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
I would
therefore continue maintaining the old jsecurity code, and release
those outside the incubator, just as normal business for your project.
There are options. Maintaining the old repo can be tough, as the
repository will be different, and make merges
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd suggest also to rename the packages only when
>> you are almost ready to graduate. This allows you to merge current
>> development and maintenance quite easily.
>
> This is only if you intent to keep both subversio
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
This work too. Depends on the existing user's base, I guess ?
Which was in the thousands for Wicket at the time, with numerous
systems in production.
and it makes perfect sense to follow your way in this case. How many
users does JSecurity has ?
Regarding th
I don't know the exact usage, but I'm sure it is in lower thousands -
many people use our .jars directly, but probably many more use it via
3rd party plugins (Grails plugin, etc) that is built on top of
JSecurity.
It sounds as if waiting at the last possible second to move from
org.jsecurity.* to
Les Hazlewood wrote:
I don't know the exact usage, but I'm sure it is in lower thousands -
many people use our .jars directly, but probably many more use it via
3rd party plugins (Grails plugin, etc) that is built on top of
JSecurity.
It sounds as if waiting at the last possible second to move f
Thanks to IntelliJ Idea, which updates our Spring and Hibernate files
automatically during refactoring already, even this isn't an issue for
us (thankfully). We should be good!
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>> I don't know
Oops, I feel this hijacked Jukka's thread.
So, what about the following Maven repo statement?
Incubating projects won't be published to the main repository under
the org.apache group ID, but they are free to publish to other group
ids of their choosing.
This means existing projects that enter th
I'd be very surprised if it does close the issue :)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My guess is this issue will keep coming up *TILL* the folks who want
>> this to h
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be very surprised if it does close the issue :)...
IMHO voting about where to put incubator Maven artifacts is a majority
vote among of the Incubator PMC, so that should allow us to move
forward, even if we're not u
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've updated https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57 with the
> changes proposed by Justin, Noel, and Bill. Please take a look.
It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
have been r
Hi,
With my (shiny new ;-) board hat on, I'm following up on a a concern
expressed at yesterday's board meeting.
It seems like the schedule of incubator podling reports to the board,
as well as the list of incubating projects at [2] is not very reliable
- probably due to the well-known "redundant
It sounds as if waiting at the last possible second to move from
org.jsecurity.* to org.apache.jsecurity.* is the best option for us.
That way we can move over to the Apache SVN as soon as possible, but
impact the existing community only when absolutely necessary.
This is what we decided with JS
> we'll use it as an opportunity to refactor some of the APIs in order to avoid
> a double breakage in concurrent versions.
We have some minor refactoring to do as well and we've decided to do
the same thing - if there's going to be an inconvenience, you might as
well bundle it all at once (if you
Done.
Craig
On Jun 26, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
I've updated https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57
with the
changes proposed by Justin, Noel, and Bill. Please take a look.
It's
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-57?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Craig Russell closed INCUBATOR-57.
--
Resolution: Fixed
clr% svn commit -m "INCUBATOR-57 again, clarify podling new committer proce
While updating the PPMC new committer voting guide, I notice that
there has been no recent action on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-72
An affirmative vote is required to change the policy, which currently
confuses the role of the PPMC and the incubator PMC. The patch simply
Referring to: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Empire-dbProposal
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> I find this alarming: when there are no new challenges awaiting the
> project, why join Apache? The code is stable and mature, you can just
> leave it at sf.net. There doesn't seem to be a plan other than "
Referring to: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Empire-dbProposal
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> I find this alarming: when there are no new challenges awaiting the
> project, why join Apache? The code is stable and mature, you can just
> leave it at sf.net. There doesn't seem to be a plan other than "
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Index: site-author/incubation/Incubation_Policy.xml...
+1 to the proposed patch, thanks for this.
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
--- Noel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
> have been raised.
> Craig, could you commit your patch so that we can close this issue?
Did anyone actually count the vote? I have no problem with Craig's patch, but
did anyone actually vote for
On Jun 26, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
have been raised.
Craig, could you commit your patch so that we can close this issue?
Did anyone actually count the vote? I have no problem
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
It's been three days since Craig posted his patch, and no objections
have been raised.
Craig, could you commit your patch so that we can close this issue?
Did anyone actually count the vote? I have no problem with Craig's patch, but
did
I'm a little confused, because the wiki says that the proposal is being put
on hold and that the goal is to work with the Roller community.
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CaitrinProposal
Nevertheless, if there's interest in building a Flex front end, let me
know...
--
Martin Cooper
On Tue, J
30 matches
Mail list logo
