Re: TLP migration questions...
Ok, I have created a JIRA issue for infrastructure to start the TLP migration process. Attached is the content of the request. For the web site, as I understand it, we must send an email to root requesting UNIX karma for committers to access the new location on people.apache.org and to open a JIRA issue for this request. I assume that the JIRA issue is for infrastructure again, but I am not sure for which JIRA component, anyone know? Thanks. -> richard The board has agreed to create the Felix project. To aid in the process, would the Infrastructure team please do the following: #=== [1] Root Tasks Create unix group "felix" Create new DNS entry "felix.apache.org" and configure into website server instance #=== [1] Mailing List (i) addresses [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Initial mailing list : It is hoped that the archive for [EMAIL PROTECTED] can be moved to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please move the subscriber list from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] too. (iii) archives mbox 1. http://felix.apache.org/mail/felix/dev/MM.gz 2. http://felix.apache.org/mail/felix/users/MM.gz 3. http://felix.apache.org/mail/felix/commits/MM.gz 4. [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be archived in the private area. (iv) options I. Reply-To: Header [X] yes [ ] no NOTE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] II. Message Trailer [X] yes [] no #=== [2] Source Tracker (i) Subversion Move the existing incubator/felix tree to TLP #=== [3] Initial Committer list Same as existing
Re: TLP migration questions...
Richard S. Hall wrote: Felix Meschberger wrote: Hi, Initially, I was convinced, too, that a users@ list would not be needed given the current volume. On the other hand, and as Niclas pointed out, more and more questions are more like users@ questions than dev@ questions. Additionally, I tend to see a somewhat psychological aspect of having a users@ list: Maybe it is better for community building to have a low-barrier users@ list in addition to the dev@ list. Therefore, I now agree with Niclas, that we probably need a users@ list. I can go either way and I think Karl said he could too, so unless anyone has any major objections, I guess we can go with a users mailing list. This then raises another question. I assume that they move the mailing list archives and subscriber list from the old list to the new list...should the felix-dev archive and its subscribers move to dev or users ? Archives should go to the dev list, users@ would be a new list. As to subscribers, we could do either - new list, no subscribers, or subscribe all current subscribers to this new list. I'd probably go with the second - subscribing all dev subscribers to users@, and giving folks the option to unsub as required. Regards, Upayavira
Re: TLP migration questions...
On 4/18/07, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... On the other hand, and as Niclas pointed out, more and more questions are more like users@ questions than dev@ questions. Additionally, I tend to see a somewhat psychological aspect of having a users@ list: Maybe it is better for community building to have a low-barrier users@ list in addition to the dev@ list. ... I agree re: having a users list. I think users hesitate to post to a developer's list for fear of scolding. Enrique
RE: TLP migration questions...
Felix Meschberger wrote: >> >> list...should the felix-dev archive and its subscribers move to dev or >> users ? > I think, to the dev list. > Regards > Felix May be to both initially? Then people can unsubscribe to either at a later time but hopefully not to both. OTOH, we don't know when users would migrate to becoming contributors to Felix too... ;) Rick Litton
Re: TLP migration questions...
Hi, On 4/19/07, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: list...should the felix-dev archive and its subscribers move to dev or users ? I think, to the dev list. Regards Felix
Re: TLP migration questions...
Felix Meschberger wrote: Hi, Initially, I was convinced, too, that a users@ list would not be needed given the current volume. On the other hand, and as Niclas pointed out, more and more questions are more like users@ questions than dev@ questions. Additionally, I tend to see a somewhat psychological aspect of having a users@ list: Maybe it is better for community building to have a low-barrier users@ list in addition to the dev@ list. Therefore, I now agree with Niclas, that we probably need a users@ list. I can go either way and I think Karl said he could too, so unless anyone has any major objections, I guess we can go with a users mailing list. This then raises another question. I assume that they move the mailing list archives and subscriber list from the old list to the new list...should the felix-dev archive and its subscribers move to dev or users ? -> richard Just my €.02 Regards Felix On 4/19/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thursday 19 April 2007 03:31, Richard S. Hall wrote: > I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for > discussion. I am convinced a users@ list is appropriate. Just look at the last 10 threads on the current list (this one excluded); -1. Felix/OSGi and JADE Second Part -> users@ -2. bundle with felix.auto.start.2 are not starting -> users@ -3. new release -> dev@ -4. Bundle symbolic name not unique? -> users@ -5. Bundle repository -> users@ -6. [jira] Created: (FELIX-270) iPOJO Composition & Arch improve... -> dev@ -7. Launching/Embedding docs -> both -8. JADE and OSGI integration -> users@ -9. 101.6.4 of R4.1? Service Compendium -> dev@ -10. Felix TLP migration -> dev@ 5 exclusive users@ list threads, 4 dev@ ones. On top of that, it is likely (although not very strong argument) that Felix will get a lot more traction once visible as TLP, and even more so with a 1.0 release out. That means more Jira issues, that most users don't want to see, et cetera. Cheers Niclas
Re: TLP migration questions...
Hi, Initially, I was convinced, too, that a users@ list would not be needed given the current volume. On the other hand, and as Niclas pointed out, more and more questions are more like users@ questions than dev@ questions. Additionally, I tend to see a somewhat psychological aspect of having a users@ list: Maybe it is better for community building to have a low-barrier users@ list in addition to the dev@ list. Therefore, I now agree with Niclas, that we probably need a users@ list. Just my €.02 Regards Felix On 4/19/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thursday 19 April 2007 03:31, Richard S. Hall wrote: > I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for > discussion. I am convinced a users@ list is appropriate. Just look at the last 10 threads on the current list (this one excluded); -1. Felix/OSGi and JADE Second Part -> users@ -2. bundle with felix.auto.start.2 are not starting -> users@ -3. new release -> dev@ -4. Bundle symbolic name not unique? -> users@ -5. Bundle repository -> users@ -6. [jira] Created: (FELIX-270) iPOJO Composition & Arch improve... -> dev@ -7. Launching/Embedding docs -> both -8. JADE and OSGI integration -> users@ -9. 101.6.4 of R4.1? Service Compendium -> dev@ -10. Felix TLP migration -> dev@ 5 exclusive users@ list threads, 4 dev@ ones. On top of that, it is likely (although not very strong argument) that Felix will get a lot more traction once visible as TLP, and even more so with a 1.0 release out. That means more Jira issues, that most users don't want to see, et cetera. Cheers Niclas
Re: TLP migration questions...
On Thursday 19 April 2007 03:31, Richard S. Hall wrote: > I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for > discussion. I am convinced a users@ list is appropriate. Just look at the last 10 threads on the current list (this one excluded); -1. Felix/OSGi and JADE Second Part -> users@ -2. bundle with felix.auto.start.2 are not starting -> users@ -3. new release -> dev@ -4. Bundle symbolic name not unique? -> users@ -5. Bundle repository -> users@ -6. [jira] Created: (FELIX-270) iPOJO Composition & Arch improve... -> dev@ -7. Launching/Embedding docs -> both -8. JADE and OSGI integration -> users@ -9. 101.6.4 of R4.1? Service Compendium -> dev@ -10. Felix TLP migration -> dev@ 5 exclusive users@ list threads, 4 dev@ ones. On top of that, it is likely (although not very strong argument) that Felix will get a lot more traction once visible as TLP, and even more so with a 1.0 release out. That means more Jira issues, that most users don't want to see, et cetera. Cheers Niclas
Re: TLP migration questions...
Marcel Offermans wrote: On Apr 18, 2007, at 21:55 , Karl Pauls wrote: I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a pretty good mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where mail should be sent when there are multiple lists... That is my impression too. More often then not what looks like a "users" question in the beginning turns into a "dev" questions before too long (which I think is great) -- hence, I'd rather stick with "only" the dev list for now. However, I don't care enough to argue if somebody feels strongly about it... Our users are developers, I agree with the strategy to start with one list and split it up if necessary. Playing devils advocate - are they developers "of Felix"? Or of their own application? This is the crucial distinction. There are many Apache projects where users are developers so Felix isn't alone here. I think it is a matter of (a) list volume and (b) whether we see ourself as producing stable releases around which we intend to build a user community. Maybe we should be aiming to do (b) but it doesn't quite feel like we are yet. Regards, Upayavira
Re: TLP migration questions...
On Apr 18, 2007, at 21:55 , Karl Pauls wrote: I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a pretty good mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where mail should be sent when there are multiple lists... That is my impression too. More often then not what looks like a "users" question in the beginning turns into a "dev" questions before too long (which I think is great) -- hence, I'd rather stick with "only" the dev list for now. However, I don't care enough to argue if somebody feels strongly about it... Our users are developers, I agree with the strategy to start with one list and split it up if necessary. Greetings, Marcel
Re: TLP migration questions...
> The dev list will be [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we want a user list, it > probably should be users@, although there are at least some called [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a pretty good mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where mail should be sent when there are multiple lists... -> richard That is my impression too. More often then not what looks like a "users" question in the beginning turns into a "dev" questions before too long (which I think is great) -- hence, I'd rather stick with "only" the dev list for now. However, I don't care enough to argue if somebody feels strongly about it... regards, Karl > > And the private list becomes private@ > > Regards, Upayavira > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TLP migration questions...
Richard S. Hall wrote: Upayavira wrote: The dev list will be [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we want a user list, it probably should be users@, although there are at least some called [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a pretty good mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where mail should be sent when there are multiple lists... I also think we're okay with one list at the moment. We can spin off a users list whenever we consider it necessary. One time when we may want to do so is when we start having releases that we commit to maintain. At that point we will have 'users' in the more conventional sense. At the moment, we're still a development community with some more pioneering users. Regards, Upayavira
Re: TLP migration questions...
Upayavira wrote: The dev list will be [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we want a user list, it probably should be users@, although there are at least some called [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not convinced that we need a "users" list, just brought it up for discussion. My thinking is that we don't have overwhelming volume on this list, so it is probably okay to keep just one...it is a pretty good mix too. Further, I find that users tend to get confused about where mail should be sent when there are multiple lists... -> richard And the private list becomes private@ Regards, Upayavira
Re: TLP migration questions...
Richard S. Hall wrote: Richard S. Hall wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts on what we should do for mailing lists when we migrate to TLP? It seems that most projects simplify the name of the list, e.g., "felix-dev" ==> "dev"... I assume this is because "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is repetitive. I assume we will do the same thing. I was also wondering if we should now try to separate our traffic into two lists, one for Felix development and one for Felix users, thus we could have: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or I guess for consistency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The dev list will be [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we want a user list, it probably should be users@, although there are at least some called [EMAIL PROTECTED] And the private list becomes private@ Regards, Upayavira
Re: TLP migration questions...
Richard S. Hall wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts on what we should do for mailing lists when we migrate to TLP? It seems that most projects simplify the name of the list, e.g., "felix-dev" ==> "dev"... I assume this is because "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is repetitive. I assume we will do the same thing. I was also wondering if we should now try to separate our traffic into two lists, one for Felix development and one for Felix users, thus we could have: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or I guess for consistency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> richard I am not sure if this is necessary or not. Thoughts on this or anything else? -> richard
