There are now 4-times-a-day tarballs of snapshots of the CVS modules for
each of the incubator projects, as well as the main incubator module, at
http://cvs.apache.org/snapshots/
Brian
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Moving to general@
>
> I think it would be a good idea to
rrently included. could someone please point me in the right
> direction?
>
> - robert
>
> On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 06:32 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> > There are now 4-times-a-day tarballs of snapshots of the CVS modules for
> > each of the incubator proj
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Leo Simons wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > Personally, I've had my fill of this kind of crap being left on
> > our public infrastructure. I shouldn't have to wait days to update
> > a trivial website.
>
> Indeed. I think by now its been pointed out several times exactly
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Then I'd call it Ruper for now, which is the name of the initially
> proposed codebase, where Ruper = resource updater.
Or in honor of the best competitor on Survivor, ever: Rupert.
Brian
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Personally, I view Political Correctness as being closer to Orwellian
> thought control than a sincere attempt to instill appreciation for, and
> tolerance of, diversity.
And I think "Political Correctness" is a term invented by the right to
pretend th
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> First of all, we are in the process of deciding and clearly documenting
> that only TLPs are to be incubated. Why? Because in Apache there are
> only TLPs. Thus, Ruper is incubated on the premises that it wants to
> become a TLP for artifact handling
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2004, at 7:33 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, if we receive a signed CLA or Software Grant,
> > there is a
> > presumption that they had the right to provide it.
>
> Yes, because it would be fraud otherwise on the part
In walking through the incubation documents (helping a couple of groups
who have asked me about how to do this) it struck me that there was no
requirement that the proposal provide a link to download and evaluate the
code around which a project is being proposed - in fact it appears the
code it
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
In walking through the incubation documents (helping a couple of groups
who have asked me about how to do this) it struck me that there was no
requirement that the proposal provide a link to download and evaluate the
code
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
Please, not here. I'm quite confident that a good portion of the
inhabitants of this list doesn't care much about who is going to "win"
this flamefest. At least I am not, and I can imagine that neither
general@ nor [EMAIL PROTECT
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
It seems to me that any honest assessment of the merit of
accepting a proposal should include a look at the code itself, if only to
get a gut-check on how maintainable and evolveable that codebase might be
going forward
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
for another thing, the asf *does* have a higher standard: we require
transfer of ownership and ip. it makes perfect sense to me that a
company may be willing to transfer those to the asf, but *not* be
willing to throw them into the open -- which i
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
why? if the idea excites people but the code sucks, are we going to
turn it down?
In that case, we might decide to accept a new project into the incubator
for the same purpose
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
What if a company considers to introduce an open source strategy,
but the decision depends on whether the code is accepted as an
Apache project or not? I think they will avoid showing the code
before the project is
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Anyways, I'll desist on this if it doesn't seem like there's convergence
towards something. Like many conversations in the ASF these days the
responses strike me more as "here's where yo
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I'm told my earlier message was unclear.
Unless our legal counsel changes my understanding, which I consider rather
unlikely, since I've already pursued the question, I am absolutely opposed
to reviewing code under an NDA (unless it is something unusual,
Right on! Congrats to the Sandesha team. Glad to hear about the interop
testing, and that the LSF continues to grow.
Brian
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Project Report Sandesha
I would like to discuss under the following headings.
§ What we have done so far
§
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That is correct. 2 main issues with any codebase
that the ASF develops is that (1) it be under the
Apache License and (2) that the Copyright be assigned
to the ASF.
So it must be licensed "by" the ASF (via the AL) and
"owned" by the ASF.
That is not corre
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Ceki [iso-8859-1] Gülcü wrote:
I am quite embarrassed to ask but what is the foundation's position on
distributing code which depends on the following environments?
- Mono 1.0 (GPL)
- Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 & 1.1 & Compact Framework 1.0 (Closed Source)
- Microsoft SSCLI
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Nicko Cadell wrote:
The release package includes project files for Microsoft
Visual Studio
.NET, however this is not a dependency.
Does this mean these are files copied from (perhaps modified,
perhaps not) the Microsoft product, which originally carried
a Microsoft copyright?
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Ceki [iso-8859-1] Gülcü wrote:
I won't make any empty promises here. I don't think the LS PMC could take
over log4x code if the current contributors stopped working on it.
The LS PMC should then put effort into finding new developers. My
expectation as a board member would b
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Ceki [iso-8859-1] Gülcü wrote:
How can a single bad project destroy most of what the foundation has
accomplished?
By having the solitary developer incorporate code they don't have the
rights to, and no one around looking over their shoulder to peer review,
leading to a lawsui
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
It appears that the committer issue is the only thing that is keeping
everyone from being in favour of Derby graduating. The committer base
has been expanded beyond the original IBM team by one, but progress
is being made to add more.
Does anyone
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Well... the three committer rule is (although there are exceptions for
corner cases...), but we have a bit of dissonance between how we are defining
"independent committer" here (http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/
Incubation_Policy.html#Minimu
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
How does SWT relate?
It really doesn't. I think of it as an extra-J2SE application API.
But there has been quite a bit of back and forth about SWT and Swing so this
seemed like a question someone might ask
I think, to make it clear to the world tha
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Actually, you generally just want to ignore spam. After a few days
ezmlm will just remove it from the pending queue. Rejecting it sends
a reply, which tells the spammer that it's a valid address.
So does a timeout ("sorry, your message has not been a
Sorry about the delay, now that the cvs trees are moved I can get to this.
Congrats on the new project!
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Ted Leung wrote:
> ~ The xml pmc has agreed to accept the xmlbeans project for incubation.
> ~ To aid in the process,
> ~ Please create these below:
>
> [1] Mailing List
>
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> James Strachan asked:
> > Can the mailing list software automatically detect that the sender
> > isn't on the list and that they mention Geronimo in the mail and
> > send an automated reply?
>
> You'd have to ask infrastructure. Hopefully the volume of
We have archive.apache.org, I don't see the need to create a new vhost.
Brian
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> What about:
>
>graveyard.apache.org
>hibernation.apache.org
>byebye.apache.org
>devnull.apache.org
>frozen.apache.org
>...
>
> Where we c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [general] JIRA bug, patch & feature request tracker available
On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 12:52 am, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> Is there a reason why the bugzilla installation on nagoya.apache.org
> isn't
> considered? It's used b
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> i like morgue also. and the suggested usage is distinct from the
> archive.apache.org purpose. the latter is 'all things apache, for
> all of time.' the morgue's purpose would be 'all things dead.'
> there's a difference. you won't be able to
Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:33 AM
> > Subject: [JBoss-dev] July 2003 news
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Apache J2EE effort.
> > > First a bit of history. I offered EJBoss when it was 4 month old to
> > > Apache. The guys at Jakarta vote OK unanimously an
32 matches
Mail list logo
