Hi,
The Apache Empire-db community has approved the 2.2.0-incubating release and we
are now looking for approval of the IPMC to publish the release.
With this release we have made a major API change removing unrecommended legacy
features that have been non-standard Java. The API now is much cle
The current RAT situation leads me to suggest that we graduate Empire.
As a mentor, I'd characterize Empire-Db as a project that was long ago
ready, save for the same issue as RAT: a small group that grows very,
very, slowly.
They respond on their email, they apply Apache process, they make relea
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> Thoughts?
AFAICT this problem is pretty common in many long-term podlings. They
have the seeds for becoming large, sustainable TLPs, but for one
reason or another haven't been able to grow their communities to meet
our diversity req
Hi all,
thanks Jukka for your view on this issue and thank you Benson for bringing this
topic up.
I am one of the Empire-db committers and certainly we would appreciate it very
much if there is a way for us to graduate.
It is true that we are a small community of around 5 regularly active
comm
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> thanks Jukka for your view on this issue and thank you Benson for bringing
> this topic up.
>
> I am one of the Empire-db committers and certainly we would appreciate it
> very much if there is a way for us to graduate.
> It is
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> The current RAT situation leads me to suggest that we graduate Empire.
>
> As a mentor, I'd characterize Empire-Db as a project that was long ago
> ready, save for the same issue as RAT: a small group that grows very,
> very, slowly.
(Ra
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> In any case it seems like a good idea to impose some sort of soft time limit
> on the continuation strategy.
Prospective podlings are well-advised to consider that if things don't work
out, a project which might have been perfectly v
>
> Prospective podlings are well-advised to consider that if things don't work
> out, a project which might have been perfectly viable elsewhere for years to
> come will have to deal with both the disruption of a name change and the
> stigma of having a big red termination stamp applied by the Inc
On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> [...snip...]
>
> Even so, my basic view is that these folks are viable as a TLP, and if
> someone really disagrees, I might feel strongly enough to ask the
> board to shoot my head off for asking it to weigh in.
+1 to that Benson. I agree w
On Oct 30, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>>> [...snip...]
>>
>> Even so, my basic view is that these folks are viable as a TLP, and if
>> someone really disagrees, I might feel strongly enough to ask the
>> board to sh
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> To me this suggests that our current three state transitions [1] from
> the podling phase -- termination, continuation and graduation -- may
> need some adjustment. That could mean introducing new exit strategies
> or relaxing the exi
Hi Dave,
I have been with the project from the beginning and so far we have accepted one
new comitter per year - after we felt that they have shown their comittment
submitting patches for some time. So in total we have had 3 new comitters since
incubation and they are all still active.
However
Two quick comments, haven't read the context:
Marvin Humphrey wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:26:57 -0700:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > To me this suggests that our current three state transitions [1] from
> > the podling phase -- termination, continuation
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> IMHO 5 diverse, active and regular committers is enough to sustain a TLP
Agreed. Our key metric here is having at least three independent (and
active) committers, which sounds like to be the case for Empire-db.
My comments earl
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Two quick comments, haven't read the context:
>
> Marvin Humphrey wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:26:57 -0700:
>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> > To me this suggests that our current three state transition
Benson Margulies wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 15:33:25 -0400:
> Could the incubator, or a clone of the incubator, serve as a permanent
> home for small projects? Essentially, this amounts to removing all the
> 'incubator' disclaimer and branding requirements for these projects,
> and retaining the
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jukka Zitting
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>>> wrote:
Opinions? Objectio
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Benson Margulies wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 15:33:25 -0400:
>> Could the incubator, or a clone of the incubator, serve as a permanent
>> home for small projects? Essentially, this amounts to removing all the
>> 'incubator' disclaimer and b
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> wrote:
>> But yes, I agree that using "kill search" is probably a bad idea.
>> What podlings needs to do is essentially "fact finding" (not
>> interpretation). Perhaps someone could come up with something along
>> this line of thinki
Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> But yes, I agree that using "kill search" is probably a bad idea.
> >> What podlings needs to do is essentially "fact finding" (not
> >> interpretation). Perhaps someone could come up with something along
> >> this line of thi
Benson Margulies wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >
> > Thinking out load: perhaps just promote the project into a TLP, while
> > having a few IPMC members volunteer to become PMC members of the new TLP
> > and provide oversight?
>
> Yup. No muss, no fuss, no new mechanisms.
Good solution. Presume
On 10/30/2011 8:05 PM, David Crossley wrote:
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>>
>>> Thinking out load: perhaps just promote the project into a TLP, while
>>> having a few IPMC members volunteer to become PMC members of the new TLP
>>> and provide oversight?
>>
>> Yup. No muss, no
22 matches
Mail list logo
