Re: Possible proposal: Catacomb joining the ASF - first steps
On Jan 30, 2004, at 6:30 AM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote: I became involved in the last few months in the Catacomb effort (http://www.webdav.org/catacomb). For those of you who don't know this project, it's all about building a mod_dav plugin/provider that, using a RDBMS as a backend, provides some advanced WebDAV features such as DASL and DeltaV. ++1 :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible proposal: Catacomb joining the ASF - first steps
--On Friday, January 30, 2004 1:25 PM +0100 Sander Striker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think Catacomb would be a welcome addition to the HTTP Server project. +1. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible proposal: Catacomb joining the ASF - first steps
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 12:30, Gianugo Rabellino wrote: > I became involved in the last few months in the Catacomb effort > (http://www.webdav.org/catacomb). For those of you who don't know this > project, it's all about building a mod_dav plugin/provider that, using a > RDBMS as a backend, provides some advanced WebDAV features such as DASL > and DeltaV. > > The project started as a UCSC research project but it does have a good > deal of external contributors as well. It's, community wise, still a bit > in its infancy, expecially from the governance POV, but the codebase is > OK, at least as a starting point. > > Since when I started working with it, I thought that Catacomb could be a > very good addition for the httpd folks: IMHO it's the typical win-win > situation, where Apache gains knowleadgeble folks in a very important > area as well as a pretty robust codebase with cool features and Catacomb > gets much more visibility (and outside help, and diffusion, and all the > yadda-yadda...). > > This said, and after having reached consensus on the Catacomb mailing > list, I've started to consider how to move forward, and this is why I'm > requiring your assistence. The first and foremost question is > understanding whether Catacomb should really undergo the incubation > process: it's a small and pretty straightforward codebase (less than > 13000 SLOC) which doesn't really qualify even as a module, being a > "module's module" given the current mod_dav architecture. I'm somehow > wondering, as a starting point, if this could be considered "just" a > simple code donation or if it would be advisable, since it requires > adding a fair bunch of people as committers, to approach it in the > established way, as a fully fledged incubation process. Part of going through the Incubator is clearing the legalities. And this most certainly cannot be skipped. > I'm open to either opportunities, and willing to help the Catacomb > community enter Apache doing all the boring "paperwork" if there is > interest on this side of the fence too. We can always use help in that dept. Chasing people for CLAs and the like ;). > Mind you, I'm not an ASF member, > so I would also like to know if there is someone among you willing to > champion this proposal while counting on my help. Also, please note that > I'm not of course part of the httpd PMC, so if you need some input keep > me in CC (or just discuss it on [EMAIL PROTECTED]). > > Comments? I think Catacomb would be a welcome addition to the HTTP Server project. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Possible proposal: Catacomb joining the ASF - first steps
I became involved in the last few months in the Catacomb effort (http://www.webdav.org/catacomb). For those of you who don't know this project, it's all about building a mod_dav plugin/provider that, using a RDBMS as a backend, provides some advanced WebDAV features such as DASL and DeltaV. The project started as a UCSC research project but it does have a good deal of external contributors as well. It's, community wise, still a bit in its infancy, expecially from the governance POV, but the codebase is OK, at least as a starting point. Since when I started working with it, I thought that Catacomb could be a very good addition for the httpd folks: IMHO it's the typical win-win situation, where Apache gains knowleadgeble folks in a very important area as well as a pretty robust codebase with cool features and Catacomb gets much more visibility (and outside help, and diffusion, and all the yadda-yadda...). This said, and after having reached consensus on the Catacomb mailing list, I've started to consider how to move forward, and this is why I'm requiring your assistence. The first and foremost question is understanding whether Catacomb should really undergo the incubation process: it's a small and pretty straightforward codebase (less than 13000 SLOC) which doesn't really qualify even as a module, being a "module's module" given the current mod_dav architecture. I'm somehow wondering, as a starting point, if this could be considered "just" a simple code donation or if it would be advisable, since it requires adding a fair bunch of people as committers, to approach it in the established way, as a fully fledged incubation process. I'm open to either opportunities, and willing to help the Catacomb community enter Apache doing all the boring "paperwork" if there is interest on this side of the fence too. Mind you, I'm not an ASF member, so I would also like to know if there is someone among you willing to champion this proposal while counting on my help. Also, please note that I'm not of course part of the httpd PMC, so if you need some input keep me in CC (or just discuss it on [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Comments? -- Gianugo Rabellino Pro-netics s.r.l. - http://www.pro-netics.com Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com (Blogging at: http://www.rabellino.it/blog/) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
