RE: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Johan Compagner wrote: > The feeling i get from the mail below is that incubator releases > are not really meant for all end users.. You really only want > the users that really knows that it is an incubator release. > But for me wicket-2.0 will be a full release a real release that > every user of wicket should be able to use just as they are using > wicket 1.2.x now. That's fine. We don't care how many of them do or do not choose to use it, so long as the status is clear to them. > And all the time spans for the incubator i here now (6 months is the fastest > many go even to 1 year) then we will release or want to release some or many > releases in that time frame. And as i said i still have the feeling that that > shouldn't be done in the incubator time or under the incubator flag. Time to graduate all depends upon the project. Sometimes there are legal issues (Roller), sometimes there are community issues (most others). But from what you said, below, it really wouldn't matter. > This is just bad. We need to move on as fast we we developers an put in the > code in to SVN. Not as fast as some legal or administrative tasks has to be > done. The ASF requires that releases be made by voting. And that releases are clear of IP issues. Etc. That has nothing to do with being in the Incubator or not. The JAMES project is currently working to push out a release, and we are spending more time on resolving issues related to USA export regulations for code using cryptography and a change in how we report licensing, etc., than we are with the code, which -- barring stop ship defects -- should be finished. But those are one time issues, so we won't have to repeat the process for each subsequent release. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On 8/3/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > ...BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor... ...We welcome you. There can never be enough mentors. ok, so feel free to add my name to the list! Done! Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 8/3/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > ...BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor... ...We welcome you. There can never be enough mentors. ok, so feel free to add my name to the list! -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a desire to incubate their project within the ASF BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor. I'm not (yet) using Wicket though, so others might be better qualified than me for this task, if they are closer to the project. We welcome you. There can never be enough mentors. Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:30:14AM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: > > > Its a little bit itchy to read about "complying with rules" or about "who > > decides". When you get right down to it, legally, the person who decides > > is the VP. And I can count on the fingers of 0 hands how many times he > > laid down the law here in incubator land! > > To be clear, is this to be interpreted as a good thing or a bad thing? :-) Good, thank you :-) LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Your very welcome on the wicket lists. And i do like that you choose 2.0 I would really like much more feedback of users of the 2.0 trunk! johan On 8/1/06, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Igor Vaynberg wrote: > hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope you > realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like > refactoring :) > Thanks for the heads up. I do realise this. My project is non urgent and I intend to be actively involved with development once I understand a bit more. Hence choosing 2.0 See you on the Wicket dev lists... Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
The feeling i get from the mail below is that incubator releases are not really meant for all end users.. You really only want the users that really knows that it is an incubator release. But for me wicket-2.0 will be a full release a real release that every user of wicket should be able to use just as they are using wicket 1.2.x now. And all the time spans for the incubator i here now (6 months is the fastest many go even to 1 year) then we will release or want to release some or many releases in that time frame. And as i said i still have the feeling that that shouldn't be done in the incubator time or under the incubator flag. This is just bad. We need to move on as fast we we developers an put in the code in to SVN. Not as fast as some legal or administrative tasks has to be done. johan On 8/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dion, > What point is there in having something incubated if there are no users? We're talking about a balance, and most specifically about ensuring that only users who have made a specific and informed decision are using the code while it is still in the Incubator. The Apache brand has a value and meaning, and users need to know that there is a greater risk of the project not being around here for them, and that the project is not endorsed. The ASF also needs to prevent brand abuse, which is a distinct possibility, and some would claim is already a goal of some contributors. > Why have releases from within the Incubator at all, in that case? :-) Keep in mind that at one point, *NO* releases were allowed, and that I was one of the ones who argued the point that you are making. That we do want to permit *SOME* sort of release, in order to allow people who *ARE* fully informed and are willing to take the risk to more easily use the code than having to build it from source control, which is what was previously the only way. Maven aside, there is no obstacle at all. Download the code just like you would any other package. For maven, an extra step or so to make sure that the person who is executing maven has very specifically and consciously opted in to take that specific component from the Incubator. And if you'll also notice, I recognize that there are transition issues for existing projects, particularly existing Open Source projects. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Igor Vaynberg wrote: hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope you realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like refactoring :) Thanks for the heads up. I do realise this. My project is non urgent and I intend to be actively involved with development once I understand a bit more. Hence choosing 2.0 See you on the Wicket dev lists... Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
from wicket's point of view we are not really concerned with the "brand abuse" that much. we are in no hurry to convert our packages to org.apache.wicket and in no hurry to call our releases apache wicket. what we are concerned about is having a way to provide wicket releases to our existing userbase while maintaining a single infrastructure for the project to have as-low-as-possible maintenance overhead. so i think if we work that out - and we did outline our thoughts in the wiki proposal - i think we will be good to go. -Igor On 7/31/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Igor Vaynberg wrote: > we have been told that -incubating is nothing more then a > tag that the project is in the incubator and does not at > all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness > for production use It is not a comment on the code quality at all, but it is a comment on whether or not users should expect the code to continue to be available from the ASF, and on whether or not (not, in this case), it in any way carries an ASF imprimatur. > the opposite view taken from the maven2 repo thread on this list The issue with the Maven 2 repositories is with the automated downloading of code from them. Without automated downloading, the user has to manually take action to download code from a URL, directory and artifact all carrying the Incubator brand, and where-in they will see a disclaimer notice in the browser. With Maven 2, that doesn't happen. So a separate repository is to provide clear separation to ensure and enforce the specific opt-in. It is a consistent message: users should be informed and specifically opting to use code from the Incubator. > wicket might be a good example and a chance for ASF incubator to learn of > the needs of these existing projects that want to join ASF and how to best > accomodate them. Actually, we've been through this before, but I think that, yes, we're going to use Wicket as the catalyst to push the issue to a documented consensus. One trick is likely to be how we can reduce pain while preventing (potential) brand abuse. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Igor Vaynberg wrote: > we have been told that -incubating is nothing more then a > tag that the project is in the incubator and does not at > all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness > for production use It is not a comment on the code quality at all, but it is a comment on whether or not users should expect the code to continue to be available from the ASF, and on whether or not (not, in this case), it in any way carries an ASF imprimatur. > the opposite view taken from the maven2 repo thread on this list The issue with the Maven 2 repositories is with the automated downloading of code from them. Without automated downloading, the user has to manually take action to download code from a URL, directory and artifact all carrying the Incubator brand, and where-in they will see a disclaimer notice in the browser. With Maven 2, that doesn't happen. So a separate repository is to provide clear separation to ensure and enforce the specific opt-in. It is a consistent message: users should be informed and specifically opting to use code from the Incubator. > wicket might be a good example and a chance for ASF incubator to learn of > the needs of these existing projects that want to join ASF and how to best > accomodate them. Actually, we've been through this before, but I think that, yes, we're going to use Wicket as the catalyst to push the issue to a documented consensus. One trick is likely to be how we can reduce pain while preventing (potential) brand abuse. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Dion, > What point is there in having something incubated if there are no users? We're talking about a balance, and most specifically about ensuring that only users who have made a specific and informed decision are using the code while it is still in the Incubator. The Apache brand has a value and meaning, and users need to know that there is a greater risk of the project not being around here for them, and that the project is not endorsed. The ASF also needs to prevent brand abuse, which is a distinct possibility, and some would claim is already a goal of some contributors. > Why have releases from within the Incubator at all, in that case? :-) Keep in mind that at one point, *NO* releases were allowed, and that I was one of the ones who argued the point that you are making. That we do want to permit *SOME* sort of release, in order to allow people who *ARE* fully informed and are willing to take the risk to more easily use the code than having to build it from source control, which is what was previously the only way. Maven aside, there is no obstacle at all. Download the code just like you would any other package. For maven, an extra step or so to make sure that the person who is executing maven has very specifically and consciously opted in to take that specific component from the Incubator. And if you'll also notice, I recognize that there are transition issues for existing projects, particularly existing Open Source projects. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Noel J. Bergman wrote: > What would you think ... purely as talking points ... if the code for Wicket > came over to our SVN, and ... Actually, what I wrote seems to be similar to what the Wicket folks put into the wiki earlier today, but theirs has more detail. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Leo Simons wrote: > Its a little bit itchy to read about "complying with rules" or about "who > decides". When you get right down to it, legally, the person who decides > is the VP. And I can count on the fingers of 0 hands how many times he > laid down the law here in incubator land! To be clear, is this to be interpreted as a good thing or a bad thing? :-) --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Craig, > The main point for me is that you are forking the Wicket code to > create the Apache project, and intent is everything. If you're > planning on actively developing in the old community, I'd question > the decision to come to Apache. It is a transition phase. As with sensory systems, liminal phenomena are amongst the most interesting and challenging things to deal with. So here are some criteria to balance: (1) support existing user community (2) move development to ASF (3) to support (1), maintain release (4) meet ASF requirements regarding Incubator branding, which are specifically designed to protect users in the event of incubation failure (and we have had at least 5 projects fail that I can think off off-hand). Largely, we tacitly discourage users from participating. (5) don't making doing all this so hard that it isn't worth doing. How to do it? Well, that's the challenge. --- Noel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
This seems a little ridiculous. What point is there in having something incubated if there are no users? What sort of a community would it be that didn't accept feedback and evolve based on that feedback? How many users are willing to wait 6+ months to use something just because it is undergoing incubation? Why have releases from within the Incubator at all, in that case? Surely one of the signs of a healthy community is well serviced users? I understand the 'Incubation Process' doesn't take into account what users do or need, but surely the Incubator PMC would see a lack of user involvment as a negative point? To me that's one of the signs of a community-less code dump. On 8/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then > wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating says "not ready for > production use". Keep in mind that the Incubator has very little interest in users using the code. Our focus is entirely on developers, and users are "interesting" only if they are becoming new developers. Otherwise, it would probably be best if they waited until the project leaves the Incubator. Our branding is specifically to warn users away, or at least caution them that these projects are not endorsed. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ "If you even dream of beating me you'd better wake up and apologize" - Muhammad Ali - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > In general, what I recommend projects to do is follow what SA did Keep in mind that SA *had* to do it, because they had licensing problems with their earlier code. As a general thing, it would be best for the developer community if they could have all of their code in one place. That makes sense, but we still need to make sure that we have a "firewall" to prevent brand abuse. What would you think ... purely as talking points ... if the code for Wicket came over to our SVN, and ... - version 1.x code stays in the wicket.* package space, which does not bleed any ASF branding. It is already ASF licensed. - version 2.x code uses the org.apache.* package space. Builds for 1.x would be based on code from here, but distributed from the same place that they are currently distributed, with nothing to indicate at all that they have any connection to the ASF. Builds for 2.x follow Incubator release guidelines. Development lists can be treated as you discussed. User lists should probably stay on SF.net until the project graduates. Why would we want them here? The goal is to maintain the strict brand separation from the ASF, while recognizing that the project already had a well-established external existence. And I would agree that, as with Celtix and XFire, these projects agree to put their old versions essentially into maintenance mode until they are ready to release from the ASF. Again, these are just talking points. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
i am getting a lot of mixed messages here. we have been told that -incubating is nothing more then a tag that the project is in the incubator and does not at all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness for production use, but following is the opposite view taken from the maven2 repo thread on this list. i think ASF needs to get its stuff together when it comes to letting in existing projects into the incubator. certain concessions need to be made that will accomodate both existing developer base as well as the existing userbase and minimize the pain to all parties involved. wicket might be a good example and a chance for ASF incubator to learn of the needs of these existing projects that want to join ASF and how to best accomodate them. just thinking out loud :) here is the snippet from the maven2 thread i was referring to. On 7/31/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: James Strachan wrote: > Right now its hurting users of incubating projects not to have a maven > 2 repository of the actual releases made by the projects. Most users should not be using Incubator code. Only those who are committed and willing to trust that the project will do well here and eventually become an ASF project. Remember that most people don't believe that Incubator projects should even have a user@ list, only a dev@ list. --- Noel
RE: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
> i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then > wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating says "not ready for > production use". Keep in mind that the Incubator has very little interest in users using the code. Our focus is entirely on developers, and users are "interesting" only if they are becoming new developers. Otherwise, it would probably be best if they waited until the project leaves the Incubator. Our branding is specifically to warn users away, or at least caution them that these projects are not endorsed. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Second that. Though we should be pretty near beta and a more stable API. I think models are the last part we're debating right now. We plan to stabilize 2.0's API within the next two months. Eelco On 7/31/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope you realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like refactoring :) -Igor On 7/31/06, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a > >> desire to incubate their project within the ASF > > > > > > BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor. > > > > I'm not (yet) using Wicket though, so others might be better qualified > > than me for this task, if they are closer to the project. > > I started playing with Wicket 2.0 when I saw this proposal. I have to > say, I love it. I love it so much I'm using it on my new project. > > Does the proposal need more mentors? If so, I'm happy to jump in. > > Ross > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope you realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like refactoring :) -Igor On 7/31/06, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a >> desire to incubate their project within the ASF > > > BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor. > > I'm not (yet) using Wicket though, so others might be better qualified > than me for this task, if they are closer to the project. I started playing with Wicket 2.0 when I saw this proposal. I have to say, I love it. I love it so much I'm using it on my new project. Does the proposal need more mentors? If so, I'm happy to jump in. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a desire to incubate their project within the ASF BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor. I'm not (yet) using Wicket though, so others might be better qualified than me for this task, if they are closer to the project. I started playing with Wicket 2.0 when I saw this proposal. I have to say, I love it. I love it so much I'm using it on my new project. Does the proposal need more mentors? If so, I'm happy to jump in. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a desire to incubate their project within the ASF BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor. I'm not (yet) using Wicket though, so others might be better qualified than me for this task, if they are closer to the project. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a desire to incubate their project within the ASF Big +1 here. I've been looking at Wicket recently, and from a technical point of view I like what I see *a lot*. Your description of the Wicket community shows that it fits the ASF's way of working as well, so it looks like a very good candidate for incubation, IMHO. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 7/27/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As releases marked as incubated will probably raise an eyebrow or two, what are our options?... Seen from another angle, releases marked "incubating" are a great way to help make your community aware of what's happening. Along with a good explanation on the project's homepage, of course. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 7/26/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks Don! Thanks Upayavira, Alexa, Sylvain, Timothy and the others that have officially or unofficially championed Wicket. We hope that Wicket will make a valuable addition to Apache, and we are looking forward to get to know you guys better when we would be part of the Apache family. At great big +1 from me with respect to Wicket coming to the ASF. A dream of mine for about a year now. Proposal looks good. As a user of Wicket in my own productions systems, I understand the team's concern with continued maintenance support of the 1.2 and 1.3 codebases while incubating. I'm sure an appropriate strategy that is in the best interest of Wicket's user/customer base and in the best interest of ASF practices and policies can be discerned. Welcome Eelco, Martijn, Igor, and the rest of the Wicket crew! -- timothy bennett
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
we have updated the versions section of our proposal to reflect this. please review and lets discuss, basically we would like to incubate 1.3 as well as 2.0. http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal -Igor On 7/31/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You summarized my thoughts exactly :-) Martijn On 7/31/06, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll start by saying I'm not deeply involved in the roadmap plans, so > pay more attention to the other devs, but this seems a possible > position to me, i.e. >All source hosted at ASF, lists & web moved to ASF. >- 1.2.x > Continue in maintainance/bug-fix mode > 'wicket.*' package name > 'wicket-1.2.x' jar names, etc > SF-hosted releases? >- 1.3 > Developed (basically 1.2+ some new features from HEAD (2.x)) > 'wicket.*' package name > 'wicket-incubating-1.3.x' jar names, etc > ASF-hosted releases? >- 2.x > Primary development branch > 'org.apache.wicket.*' package name > 'wicket-incubating-2.x' jar names, etc > ASF-hosted releases > > Thoughts? > /Gwyn > > On 31/07/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 31 July 2006 07:27, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > > > This way the old branch will still be "supported". > > > But none of the users should expect that the new features will be > > > ported back to the old releases. > > > > And perhaps even incubate the 1.3, in case there are strong enough interest to > > keep developing the 1.x line. That would give signals to the user community > > that the 1.x will continue and be actively supported under the same home. > > > > And that only some bug fixing point releases are made in 1.2.x to avoid > > scaring off sensitive users (like myself --- just kidding). > > > > > > Cheers > > Niclas > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Download Wicket 1.2.1 now! Embed Wicket components in your portals! -- http://wicketframework.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
You summarized my thoughts exactly :-) Martijn On 7/31/06, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'll start by saying I'm not deeply involved in the roadmap plans, so pay more attention to the other devs, but this seems a possible position to me, i.e. All source hosted at ASF, lists & web moved to ASF. - 1.2.x Continue in maintainance/bug-fix mode 'wicket.*' package name 'wicket-1.2.x' jar names, etc SF-hosted releases? - 1.3 Developed (basically 1.2+ some new features from HEAD (2.x)) 'wicket.*' package name 'wicket-incubating-1.3.x' jar names, etc ASF-hosted releases? - 2.x Primary development branch 'org.apache.wicket.*' package name 'wicket-incubating-2.x' jar names, etc ASF-hosted releases Thoughts? /Gwyn On 31/07/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 31 July 2006 07:27, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > > This way the old branch will still be "supported". > > But none of the users should expect that the new features will be > > ported back to the old releases. > > And perhaps even incubate the 1.3, in case there are strong enough interest to > keep developing the 1.x line. That would give signals to the user community > that the 1.x will continue and be actively supported under the same home. > > And that only some bug fixing point releases are made in 1.2.x to avoid > scaring off sensitive users (like myself --- just kidding). > > > Cheers > Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Download Wicket 1.2.1 now! Embed Wicket components in your portals! -- http://wicketframework.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
You say "One of those is to be able to build releases for our community": do you mean that you are unhappy with the stated need to release from Apache and mark with "Incubating" (i.e. you want to release 1.x from SF)? Or if you were to bring the 1.x branches over to Apache, would you be prepared to swallow the bitter pill of 'incubator' markings on those releases? I want 1.x to continue their lives inside apache. But I want, until graduation, the freedom to be able to release (at least the 1.2.x versions) on sf.net, without incubator string. The release is not made available through Apache hardware/infrastructure and not branded as such. I don't mind using the incubator label on 2.x or even possibly 1.3. I seriously *do* mind labeling the releases 1.2.x as incubator, and given the following reason, I think ASF would also: I know that we have (L)GPL code inside our Wicket-extensions project, which would prohibit any release of 1.2.x until that code has been replaced/removed. This is in my opinion unacceptable for a running project. We are in the process of replacing said code, but that does take time, and it is not likely to happen in the 1.2.x timeframe. So in order to provide support to our community we *need* the ability to perform releases. We do our best to remove all non-ASL compatible code for the things we want to be graduated. Until that happens we can't leave our users out in the cold. I know that for Apache folk the label 'incubator' doesn't qualify the project as 'bad', but in the world outside, that doesn't hold. I tend to stay away from any label other than the plain version number. Any other addition to that signifies 'not production ready'. I know a lot of developers that share this view. As we intend our stay inside the incubator to be transitional, I don't see a need to 'educate' all our users and the world outside about the view that incubator is merely a legal label. We don't intend to use the Apache brand outside the confined quarters of a graduated project, *other* than notifying people that we are moving towards Apache, and that all project related infrastructure such as mailinglists, bug tracker and code repository has moved to Apache (incubator) infrastructure. It is not only the label, but also the infrastructure. SF.net has for downloads a very good infrastructure available. When we want/need to release Wicket 1.x, we want it to be available through the best means available. This means that enough bandwidth is available for downloading the release. As a side note, another issue I have noted regarding releases is that Incubator releases aren't allowed until all paperwork is in place. I would intend to have all paperwork in place before incubation begins, so that releases can be done soon in the incubation process. Do you mean with that paperwork also that all code has to be ASL? Then there is no legal reason for a release to have the label 'incubating'. It is only a label to identify that the community is not yet mature enough for Apache standards. Martijn On 7/31/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martijn Dashorst wrote: > Sorry for this lengthy response, but I got a negative vibe from > several reactions to this thread and I feel a need to vent my > concerns. > > First I am a big fan of Apache and the Apache community. I think that > the way Apache works is a great example of how a community effort can > produce great software. I think that the Wicket community is well on > its way to work in a similar fashion and would be a great addition to > the healthy community found at the ASF. I see several projects inside > ASF already working with Wicket and we always have shown interest in > working with Apache projects or using them. > > I saw a quote on the Wicket mailing list stating that 'SF.net is a > repository of open source projects and Apache is a community of people > working on open source projects' (sorry if I didn't quote this > correctly). This means IMO that PEOPLE are more important than > PROCESS. When Wicket is incubated, I fully intend to include as much > people from our community as possible. > > Someone suggested to fork the Wicket project into two: one at ASF for > Wicket 2.x and one at our current location (sf.net) for Wicket 1.x. A > forked community parted between 1.x and 2.x would be a disservice to > the Wicket community and I seriously frown upon such a suggestion. > This gives a message to those that they are not considered 'worthy' of > Apache. If the ASF is really concerned with building an open source > community, then the ASF should be working very hard to include > everyone. > > The knife cuts both ways: the Wicket community has to bite through > some hard bits, but so does the ASF imo. For us the hard bits will be > the loss of our total freedom to do whatever we want with our > framework (for instance, the possibility to incorporate any (L)GPL > code in our product), a (somewhat) more bureaucratic way of working, > and having to
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
I'll start by saying I'm not deeply involved in the roadmap plans, so pay more attention to the other devs, but this seems a possible position to me, i.e. All source hosted at ASF, lists & web moved to ASF. - 1.2.x Continue in maintainance/bug-fix mode 'wicket.*' package name 'wicket-1.2.x' jar names, etc SF-hosted releases? - 1.3 Developed (basically 1.2+ some new features from HEAD (2.x)) 'wicket.*' package name 'wicket-incubating-1.3.x' jar names, etc ASF-hosted releases? - 2.x Primary development branch 'org.apache.wicket.*' package name 'wicket-incubating-2.x' jar names, etc ASF-hosted releases Thoughts? /Gwyn On 31/07/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Monday 31 July 2006 07:27, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > This way the old branch will still be "supported". > But none of the users should expect that the new features will be > ported back to the old releases. And perhaps even incubate the 1.3, in case there are strong enough interest to keep developing the 1.x line. That would give signals to the user community that the 1.x will continue and be actively supported under the same home. And that only some bug fixing point releases are made in 1.2.x to avoid scaring off sensitive users (like myself --- just kidding). Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Martijn Dashorst wrote: > Sorry for this lengthy response, but I got a negative vibe from > several reactions to this thread and I feel a need to vent my > concerns. > > First I am a big fan of Apache and the Apache community. I think that > the way Apache works is a great example of how a community effort can > produce great software. I think that the Wicket community is well on > its way to work in a similar fashion and would be a great addition to > the healthy community found at the ASF. I see several projects inside > ASF already working with Wicket and we always have shown interest in > working with Apache projects or using them. > > I saw a quote on the Wicket mailing list stating that 'SF.net is a > repository of open source projects and Apache is a community of people > working on open source projects' (sorry if I didn't quote this > correctly). This means IMO that PEOPLE are more important than > PROCESS. When Wicket is incubated, I fully intend to include as much > people from our community as possible. > > Someone suggested to fork the Wicket project into two: one at ASF for > Wicket 2.x and one at our current location (sf.net) for Wicket 1.x. A > forked community parted between 1.x and 2.x would be a disservice to > the Wicket community and I seriously frown upon such a suggestion. > This gives a message to those that they are not considered 'worthy' of > Apache. If the ASF is really concerned with building an open source > community, then the ASF should be working very hard to include > everyone. > > The knife cuts both ways: the Wicket community has to bite through > some hard bits, but so does the ASF imo. For us the hard bits will be > the loss of our total freedom to do whatever we want with our > framework (for instance, the possibility to incorporate any (L)GPL > code in our product), a (somewhat) more bureaucratic way of working, > and having to go through the incubation process which is uncertain and > will slow down the project. > > I am willing to bite through these bitter parts and join the ASF, but > only if ASF *also* is willing to accept some of Wicket's quirks. One > of those is to be able to build releases for our community, and make > them available at a convenient place with enough bandwidth and with > the quality people expect. > > Another is not having to rename all packages (in our 1.x branch) to > org.apache.wicket. Though this is a trivial thing to do, we strive to > keep API changes to a minimum between 1.y releases. Renaming *all* > packages doesn't add value for our users and only creates a major > inconvenience for them. Note that I don't have any problem with > renaming the packages for our 2.x branch to org.apache.wicket. You say "One of those is to be able to build releases for our community": do you mean that you are unhappy with the stated need to release from Apache and mark with "Incubating" (i.e. you want to release 1.x from SF)? Or if you were to bring the 1.x branches over to Apache, would you be prepared to swallow the bitter pill of 'incubator' markings on those releases? As a side note, another issue I have noted regarding releases is that Incubator releases aren't allowed until all paperwork is in place. I would intend to have all paperwork in place before incubation begins, so that releases can be done soon in the incubation process. Regards, Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Sorry for this lengthy response, but I got a negative vibe from several reactions to this thread and I feel a need to vent my concerns. First I am a big fan of Apache and the Apache community. I think that the way Apache works is a great example of how a community effort can produce great software. I think that the Wicket community is well on its way to work in a similar fashion and would be a great addition to the healthy community found at the ASF. I see several projects inside ASF already working with Wicket and we always have shown interest in working with Apache projects or using them. I saw a quote on the Wicket mailing list stating that 'SF.net is a repository of open source projects and Apache is a community of people working on open source projects' (sorry if I didn't quote this correctly). This means IMO that PEOPLE are more important than PROCESS. When Wicket is incubated, I fully intend to include as much people from our community as possible. Someone suggested to fork the Wicket project into two: one at ASF for Wicket 2.x and one at our current location (sf.net) for Wicket 1.x. A forked community parted between 1.x and 2.x would be a disservice to the Wicket community and I seriously frown upon such a suggestion. This gives a message to those that they are not considered 'worthy' of Apache. If the ASF is really concerned with building an open source community, then the ASF should be working very hard to include everyone. The knife cuts both ways: the Wicket community has to bite through some hard bits, but so does the ASF imo. For us the hard bits will be the loss of our total freedom to do whatever we want with our framework (for instance, the possibility to incorporate any (L)GPL code in our product), a (somewhat) more bureaucratic way of working, and having to go through the incubation process which is uncertain and will slow down the project. I am willing to bite through these bitter parts and join the ASF, but only if ASF *also* is willing to accept some of Wicket's quirks. One of those is to be able to build releases for our community, and make them available at a convenient place with enough bandwidth and with the quality people expect. Another is not having to rename all packages (in our 1.x branch) to org.apache.wicket. Though this is a trivial thing to do, we strive to keep API changes to a minimum between 1.y releases. Renaming *all* packages doesn't add value for our users and only creates a major inconvenience for them. Note that I don't have any problem with renaming the packages for our 2.x branch to org.apache.wicket. Martijn -- Download Wicket 1.2.1 now! Embed Wicket components in your portals! -- http://wicketframework.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Hi Igor, On Jul 30, 2006, at 8:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: one issue that we are forgetting here and that needs to be mentioned is that wicket 2.0 requires jdk5 while 1.x is jdk1.4. so im not sure how viable of an option it is to freeze the featureset of 1.3 and only add bugfixes. a good chunk of our community cannot migrate to jdk5 and we have promised to support them not only with bugfixes but with an evolving featureset for at least a good while. Good point - so maybe follow the advice from Niclas and incubate 1.3 as well. Seems like you are in a good position to do that. I don't see it being released yet through SourceForge at all, so changing all package names to Apache is a fair game. also keeping things completely separate ( issue tracking, svn, mailing list ) will add a significant overhead to our administration. BTW, in Cayenne we migrated the entire repository to Apache SVN, with all past release history. Same for the mailing lists - just keep a single set in the incubator. The only piece that will be handled differently is packaging and distributing a release (SourceForge for un-incubated stuff; Apache - for the rest). This way you won't fracture the community and reduce the maintenance work. we are already stretched thin by supporting two versions, this will just add pain for us not to mention that some issues that are discussed are relevant to the development of both 1.x and 2.0 branches. That's understandable, and yet another reason to consolidate as much as possible. Andrus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Monday 31 July 2006 07:27, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > This way the old branch will still be "supported". > But none of the users should expect that the new features will be > ported back to the old releases. And perhaps even incubate the 1.3, in case there are strong enough interest to keep developing the 1.x line. That would give signals to the user community that the 1.x will continue and be actively supported under the same home. And that only some bug fixing point releases are made in 1.2.x to avoid scaring off sensitive users (like myself --- just kidding). Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Monday 31 July 2006 07:37, Leo Simons wrote: Thanks "mate" (I love that word) ;o) > (eg there won't be a book coming out > in October about "Apache Wicket 2.0", whereas a book on simply "Wicket 2.0" > in October might or might not make sense AFAIK, it will be "Wicket In Action" and cover both 1.2 and 2.0 and that has been in progress way before the ASF talks surfaced, and it is pretty obvious that it won't be "Apache Wicket" other than a possible a note of 'incubation has started, bla disclaimer, bla', I would assume. For good measure, let's have interested parties review it from an Apache angle before it goes to print. Cheers Niclasd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
one issue that we are forgetting here and that needs to be mentioned is that wicket 2.0 requires jdk5 while 1.x is jdk1.4. so im not sure how viable of an option it is to freeze the featureset of 1.3 and only add bugfixes. a good chunk of our community cannot migrate to jdk5 and we have promised to support them not only with bugfixes but with an evolving featureset for at least a good while. also keeping things completely separate ( issue tracking, svn, mailing list ) will add a significant overhead to our administration. we are already stretched thin by supporting two versions, this will just add pain for us not to mention that some issues that are discussed are relevant to the development of both 1.x and 2.0 branches. -Igor On 7/30/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I haven't followed the entire thread, but this sounds like what we did in Cayenne. And it did cause some misunderstanding at times regarding our intentions. Let's try to prevent similar misunderstanding in the case of Wicket. The quoted explanation seems quite reasonable to me, except that I would suggest to feature-freeze what you have on your dev branch, make a final release, and from that point only make bugfix releases from that branch (outside Apache) to encourage users to switch to Apache version. This way the old branch will still be "supported". But none of the users should expect that the new features will be ported back to the old releases. Andrus On Jul 30, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote: > It might be a question of degree, as while the intention is that the > primary development be in the 2.0 branch, there is a roadmap for the > 1.* branch that includes a 1.3 which might be viewed as having "new > features", to support the "old community" which may not be in a > position to switch to the 2.0 branch, as that will be a non-trivial > change. > > That's the release branch that I'm concerned about, and my concern is > that the above, taken literally, could be read as a suggestion to > abandon our existing users... > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:54:35AM +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Is [stuff] against the 'spirit of incubation', or some other guideline, rule > or principle? Sorry about taking this way out of context, but its a relevant question. The back-and-forth in this thread is pretty much about a somewhat vague aspect (as opposed to licensing which is easy and for wicket will be straightforward), namely "community building". What we want to see when a project is finished with this whole incubator thing is a healthy apache-style (whatever that means; the /foundation/ site provides a reasonable idea these days) community, and when we're looking at a new "top-level" project that community also has to be largely "self-sufficient" and definitely "self-governing". Its a very "people thing", this whole community business. When people like me or Justin (sorry for putting words in your mouth mate) write recommendations or suggestions a lot of it all is based on some kind of "vague" experience with it all. Its not like the world would explode if one would deviate from the specifics; as long as the general direction is ok. And that's where the mentors come in :) What we need here is evidence that all the people involved are willing to do all the extra work and perhaps bite through a few sour apples. Incubation is not easy and takes a load of effort of the project community and probably slows down quite a few things in the short term (eg there won't be a book coming out in October about "Apache Wicket 2.0", whereas a book on simply "Wicket 2.0" in October might or might not make sense (don't ask me I don't know that much about wicket)). The wicket guys need to know what they're committing to (and why!). Its a little bit itchy to read about "complying with rules" or about "who decides". When you get right down to it, legally, the person who decides is the VP. And I can count on the fingers of 0 hands how many times he laid down the law here in incubator land! g'night! LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
I haven't followed the entire thread, but this sounds like what we did in Cayenne. And it did cause some misunderstanding at times regarding our intentions. Let's try to prevent similar misunderstanding in the case of Wicket. The quoted explanation seems quite reasonable to me, except that I would suggest to feature-freeze what you have on your dev branch, make a final release, and from that point only make bugfix releases from that branch (outside Apache) to encourage users to switch to Apache version. This way the old branch will still be "supported". But none of the users should expect that the new features will be ported back to the old releases. Andrus On Jul 30, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote: It might be a question of degree, as while the intention is that the primary development be in the 2.0 branch, there is a roadmap for the 1.* branch that includes a 1.3 which might be viewed as having "new features", to support the "old community" which may not be in a position to switch to the 2.0 branch, as that will be a non-trivial change. That's the release branch that I'm concerned about, and my concern is that the above, taken literally, could be read as a suggestion to abandon our existing users... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:52:39PM +0100, Upayavira wrote: > Does anyone here have an idea what the shortest time is that a new > community might be incubated (assuming no other issues)? I think, so far, none of the new top-level projects that we have incubated have done so in less than 6 months, and in my head a year is somehow what I mention to people, with more than that for completely new communities that start without code (like harmony). There's no reason it can't be faster. Whether you would really *want* to go faster, I dunno. LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/30/06, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the > 1.x stream would go into maintainance, which might be more restrictive > than planned... The point is that the podling is either here or it's not. If new features are being added outside of the ASF, then it's not really hosted here. Hmm, are we talking about "new" in terms of absolutes, or when compared to the previous release? I'd expect all "new features" would be added to the main/podling branch, but a subset might want to be backported to the 1.3 branch, e.g. a CreditCardValidator component. Would that subset be viewed as "new features" or am I reading more into it than was the intention? /Gwyn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 30/07/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote: > On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> - All new development comes to the Incubator. We expect no more >> 'major' releases to be made outside of the ASF. For example, SA >> continued their 2.6x line at sf.net and released bug fixes. SA 3.x >> was developed here at the ASF. This is my concern with Celtix and >> XFire, but they both promised that no new 'major' versions will be >> released - only minor bug fixes, but no new features. > > I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the > 1.x stream would go into maintenance, which might be more restrictive > than planned... The main point for me is that you are forking the Wicket code to create the Apache project, and intent is everything. If you're planning on actively developing in the old community, I'd question the decision to come to Apache. It might be a question of degree, as while the intention is that the primary development be in the 2.0 branch, there is a roadmap for the 1.* branch that includes a 1.3 which might be viewed as having "new features", to support the "old community" which may not be in a position to switch to the 2.0 branch, as that will be a non-trivial change. That's the release branch that I'm concerned about, and my concern is that the above, taken literally, could be read as a suggestion to abandon our existing users... /Gwyn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote: On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and > > release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as > > apache? > > "Backporting" the changes to sf.net doesn't appear to me to be an > issue, since the Apache license is very permissive. Legally, you may not call it Apache Wicket (if that's the name you decide on), and as a matter of policy, I'd frown upon such 'backporting' behavior. No need, the intention was to stick with the "Wicket" name for the 1.* releases. The problem that Roller did was that they took code that was in our SVN repository, removed the license blocks and relicensed it to LGPL (I think) and posted it to java.net. In two words, "Uh, no." No, but not really equivalent, as we're already using the Apache licence. - All new development comes to the Incubator. We expect no more 'major' releases to be made outside of the ASF. For example, SA continued their 2.6x line at sf.net and released bug fixes. SA 3.x was developed here at the ASF. This is my concern with Celtix and XFire, but they both promised that no new 'major' versions will be released - only minor bug fixes, but no new features. I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the 1.x stream would go into maintenance, which might be more restrictive than planned... The main point for me is that you are forking the Wicket code to create the Apache project, and intent is everything. If you're planning on actively developing in the old community, I'd question the decision to come to Apache. - Development lists for the next release move to the Incubator lists here, while development discussions around previous versions need to stay where they are now. (i.e. no discussions around cutting 1.2.x releases on our lists.) - User-focused lists can move to the Incubator lists now - they can get support or whatever for older versions; but again, no development discussions on older releases happen here. Hmm, no /discussions/ about making releases from elsewhere seems somewhat extreme, but I guess it's your ball, as it were. So it's not a hard and fast rule. Your stated intent is to transition the old project to Apache, and use the Apache community for future development. It would seem odd to transition the discussion of the old project on the Apache mailing lists, as the folks who follow the Apache lists would not be able to get the fruits of the discussion from Apache. And I'd like to see you transition feature discussions to the Apache project and Apache mailing lists. When you say "Incubator lists", are these really Incubator-specific such that they'd require user re-registration upon exit, or do you just mean Apache-hosted lists? Separate topic. There is a lot of discussion in the incubator archives about what to call the aliases of incubating projects. I'm afraid that repeating that discussion on this thread would not be recommended. Craig /Gwyn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 7/30/06, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the 1.x stream would go into maintainance, which might be more restrictive than planned... The point is that the podling is either here or it's not. If new features are being added outside of the ASF, then it's not really hosted here. Hmm, no /discussions/ about making releases from elsewhere seems somewhat extreme, but I guess it's your ball, as it were. I believe that's the clearest way to achieve the goals of a separation between what is done here under our umbrella and what's done elsewhere. When you say "Incubator lists", are these really Incubator-specific such that they'd require user re-registration upon exit, or do you just mean Apache-hosted lists? Apache-hosted lists - such as [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc, etc. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and > > release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as > > apache? > > "Backporting" the changes to sf.net doesn't appear to me to be an > issue, since the Apache license is very permissive. Legally, you may not call it Apache Wicket (if that's the name you decide on), and as a matter of policy, I'd frown upon such 'backporting' behavior. No need, the intention was to stick with the "Wicket" name for the 1.* releases. The problem that Roller did was that they took code that was in our SVN repository, removed the license blocks and relicensed it to LGPL (I think) and posted it to java.net. In two words, "Uh, no." No, but not really equivalent, as we're already using the Apache licence. - All new development comes to the Incubator. We expect no more 'major' releases to be made outside of the ASF. For example, SA continued their 2.6x line at sf.net and released bug fixes. SA 3.x was developed here at the ASF. This is my concern with Celtix and XFire, but they both promised that no new 'major' versions will be released - only minor bug fixes, but no new features. I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the 1.x stream would go into maintainance, which might be more restrictive than planned... - Development lists for the next release move to the Incubator lists here, while development discussions around previous versions need to stay where they are now. (i.e. no discussions around cutting 1.2.x releases on our lists.) - User-focused lists can move to the Incubator lists now - they can get support or whatever for older versions; but again, no development discussions on older releases happen here. Hmm, no /discussions/ about making releases from elsewhere seems somewhat extreme, but I guess it's your ball, as it were. When you say "Incubator lists", are these really Incubator-specific such that they'd require user re-registration upon exit, or do you just mean Apache-hosted lists? /Gwyn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Monday 31 July 2006 00:58, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Legally, you may not call it Apache Wicket It is known as Wicket and will remain to be known as Wicket. > (if that's the name you decide on), and as a matter of policy, > I'd frown upon such 'backporting' behavior. Not sure what part you are frowning upon. Considering the strong legacy of compatibility in Apache Web Server, still supporting 1.3, I strongly doubt that you frown upon leaving existing users in the dry. Possible scenario; PersonA contributes some patch to Wicket 2.0. A wicket team member takes that patch and also applies it to Wicket 1.2.2 at SF.net with the proper attributions. Now, are you saying that this is unacceptable behavior?? It is definitely not against the license. Is it against the 'spirit of incubation', or some other guideline, rule or principle? > The problem that Roller did was that they took code that was in our > SVN repository, removed the license blocks and relicensed it to LGPL > (I think) and posted it to java.net. In two words, "Uh, no." Yep. Wicket OTOH is already under ALv2, so that particular aspect is not a concern. > - Keep their existing 'branch' wherever it is (i.e. sf.net) - do not > ever backport anything that is in the Apache SVN repository. Treat > them as a chinese wall - nothing should mix except for the initial > code grant. Code can only go into both repositories IF the > contributor explicitly says that it can do so or commits them into > both trees themselves. Sounds a bit harsher than it really is, no? Nevertheless, AFAIU the 2.0 already exist as a separate branch, and is so different that automated backporting is not possible. So, the team is already working off two branches, and if one of those moves to Apache, it shouldn't change much of the work flow. I think the Wicket team have no problem complying with this. (but see the 'scenario' above) > At no time, does a 1.2.x release *ever* get > cut from our repositories. Of course. > - No releases can be cut from the Incubator until the CLAs and > software grants are on file. (All other disclosure requirements must > be met too.) Of course. > - All new development comes to the Incubator. We expect no more > 'major' releases to be made outside of the ASF. Expected. The change to 2.0 is happening because of a lot of experience in the 1.x life span, that they want to apply. It is a convenient point in time to enter Apache Incubator, as it otherwise would also constitute another incompatible change. > - Development lists for the next release move to the Incubator lists > here, while development discussions around previous versions need to > stay where they are now. (i.e. no discussions around cutting 1.2.x > releases on our lists.) Hear ya! > - User-focused lists can move to the Incubator lists now - they can > get support or whatever for older versions; but again, no development > discussions on older releases happen here. Perhaps the user list stays where it is, and the user list for 2.0 is established closer to the release of 2.0. Makes more sense to me. Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and > release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as > apache? "Backporting" the changes to sf.net doesn't appear to me to be an issue, since the Apache license is very permissive. Legally, you may not call it Apache Wicket (if that's the name you decide on), and as a matter of policy, I'd frown upon such 'backporting' behavior. The problem that Roller did was that they took code that was in our SVN repository, removed the license blocks and relicensed it to LGPL (I think) and posted it to java.net. In two words, "Uh, no." In general, what I recommend projects to do is follow what SA did: - Keep their existing 'branch' wherever it is (i.e. sf.net) - do not ever backport anything that is in the Apache SVN repository. Treat them as a chinese wall - nothing should mix except for the initial code grant. Code can only go into both repositories IF the contributor explicitly says that it can do so or commits them into both trees themselves. At no time, does a 1.2.x release *ever* get cut from our repositories. - No releases can be cut from the Incubator until the CLAs and software grants are on file. (All other disclosure requirements must be met too.) - All new development comes to the Incubator. We expect no more 'major' releases to be made outside of the ASF. For example, SA continued their 2.6x line at sf.net and released bug fixes. SA 3.x was developed here at the ASF. This is my concern with Celtix and XFire, but they both promised that no new 'major' versions will be released - only minor bug fixes, but no new features. - Development lists for the next release move to the Incubator lists here, while development discussions around previous versions need to stay where they are now. (i.e. no discussions around cutting 1.2.x releases on our lists.) - User-focused lists can move to the Incubator lists now - they can get support or whatever for older versions; but again, no development discussions on older releases happen here. HTH. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Hi, Personally, my take on it is that the administrative side of things should be resolvable pretty quickly - collecting CLAs, reviewing licenses - also the process of Incubator PMC members observing how the Wicket community operates, all of that can IMO happen quite quickly. Collecting CLAs can take *months* depending on how many you have to collect and how responsive past contributors are. We've been at it for three months easily now with OFBiz, but I think it's probably the outlier in terms of not just many contributors (a good thing), but also some that are busy and/or hard to reach. I haven't analyzed the wicket commit logs or anything, so it may be that this does not apply, but just to let you know... Yoav - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
What is the current track record? I mean there are a lot of projects that have done the same thing. What is the best/worsed and the average? johan Does anyone here have an idea what the shortest time is that a new community might be incubated (assuming no other issues)?
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Gwyn Evans wrote: > That's the Wicket side of it - anyone have any idea about how long the > incubation period might be expected to take? Personally, my take on it is that the administrative side of things should be resolvable pretty quickly - collecting CLAs, reviewing licenses - also the process of Incubator PMC members observing how the Wicket community operates, all of that can IMO happen quite quickly. The thing that really will take a bit more time is simply both sides getting to know each other - forming those human relationships. After all, that is what holds an organisation like the ASF together in the end. As to how long that process might take, whilst I'm pretty sure it'll be on the quicker end of the scale, I'm not really that sure how long it will be - to some extent it depends upon what comes up during the process. Does anyone here have an idea what the shortest time is that a new community might be incubated (assuming no other issues)? Regards, Upayavira > On 29/07/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Time scale for Wicket 2.0 is to start out releasing betas within two >> months. We plan to finish Wicket In Action the next few months - say >> october - and we really want the 2.0 API stabilized by then, as we're >> covering 2.0. The major changes we had in mind for 2.0 have been in >> for a few months now, and as we have converted all the core >> components/ projects, and most of the wicket-stuff projects, we have >> good proof everything works (really) well. We are currently discussing >> the last API tweaks, most notably Wicket's models, but once that is >> done and proven, we are ready for beta. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
+1 :) And to second Leo, nice to see some more Dutch people :) Mvgr, Martin Upayavira wrote: The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a desire to incubate their project within the ASF. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
That's the Wicket side of it - anyone have any idea about how long the incubation period might be expected to take? /Gwyn On 29/07/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Time scale for Wicket 2.0 is to start out releasing betas within two months. We plan to finish Wicket In Action the next few months - say october - and we really want the 2.0 API stabilized by then, as we're covering 2.0. The major changes we had in mind for 2.0 have been in for a few months now, and as we have converted all the core components/ projects, and most of the wicket-stuff projects, we have good proof everything works (really) well. We are currently discussing the last API tweaks, most notably Wicket's models, but once that is done and proven, we are ready for beta. Eelco > As for 2.0, we may well want to release wicket-incubating-2.0-RCx or > similar, but I'd have hoped that we'd be out and able to do > apache-wicket-2.0 by the time we finalise 2.0. (Anyone any idea what > sort of timescales we might be expecting, by the way). > > /Gwyn > > On 27/07/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then > > > wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating says "not ready for > > > production use". it might mean something different in the apache context > > > but > > > we cant expect all our existing users or those who stumble upon wicket for > > > the first time to enlighten themselves. > > > > > > so i would rather release on our existing home at sf.net > > > > > > Yes i would also rather see a normal wicket-1.2.2.jar when we release an > > update > > to 1.2.x then a incubator name in it. 1.2.2 is a finished release and > > incubator > > doesn't say finished to me and that i guess goes for a lot of people. > > > > So i am +1 for option 2. > > > > And for 2.0 we should then really wait for getting out of incubator. Because > > the same rules apply to me. I am not pro for a final release with incubator > > in the name. > > > > johan > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Time scale for Wicket 2.0 is to start out releasing betas within two months. We plan to finish Wicket In Action the next few months - say october - and we really want the 2.0 API stabilized by then, as we're covering 2.0. The major changes we had in mind for 2.0 have been in for a few months now, and as we have converted all the core components/ projects, and most of the wicket-stuff projects, we have good proof everything works (really) well. We are currently discussing the last API tweaks, most notably Wicket's models, but once that is done and proven, we are ready for beta. Eelco As for 2.0, we may well want to release wicket-incubating-2.0-RCx or similar, but I'd have hoped that we'd be out and able to do apache-wicket-2.0 by the time we finalise 2.0. (Anyone any idea what sort of timescales we might be expecting, by the way). /Gwyn On 27/07/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then > > wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating says "not ready for > > production use". it might mean something different in the apache context > > but > > we cant expect all our existing users or those who stumble upon wicket for > > the first time to enlighten themselves. > > > > so i would rather release on our existing home at sf.net > > > Yes i would also rather see a normal wicket-1.2.2.jar when we release an > update > to 1.2.x then a incubator name in it. 1.2.2 is a finished release and > incubator > doesn't say finished to me and that i guess goes for a lot of people. > > So i am +1 for option 2. > > And for 2.0 we should then really wait for getting out of incubator. Because > the same rules apply to me. I am not pro for a final release with incubator > in the name. > > johan > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Well, my view would be that I'd like to keep the 1.2.x stream as wicket-1.2.x, whereas I'd be happy enough for the 1.3 stream to be wicket-incubating-1.3*. We'd expect the users to check the changes from 1.2 to 1.3, so having the "incubating" there (and explained in the release not) seems fine to me. As for 2.0, we may well want to release wicket-incubating-2.0-RCx or similar, but I'd have hoped that we'd be out and able to do apache-wicket-2.0 by the time we finalise 2.0. (Anyone any idea what sort of timescales we might be expecting, by the way). /Gwyn On 27/07/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then > wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating says "not ready for > production use". it might mean something different in the apache context > but > we cant expect all our existing users or those who stumble upon wicket for > the first time to enlighten themselves. > > so i would rather release on our existing home at sf.net Yes i would also rather see a normal wicket-1.2.2.jar when we release an update to 1.2.x then a incubator name in it. 1.2.2 is a finished release and incubator doesn't say finished to me and that i guess goes for a lot of people. So i am +1 for option 2. And for 2.0 we should then really wait for getting out of incubator. Because the same rules apply to me. I am not pro for a final release with incubator in the name. johan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Hi Martijn, My email is spotty for some reason; I haven't seen much feedback for you on the alias. Here's my take: On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as apache? "Backporting" the changes to sf.net doesn't appear to me to be an issue, since the Apache license is very permissive. Does this need to go through the PMC as well? As a matter of communication, the Incubator alias should be made aware of this activity (your message performs this function), as the state of the code is a factor in determining the health of the incubating project. You're basically taking patches from Apache and applying them to another code base, which doesn't appear to violate any Apache rules. Especially our 1.2/1.3 product versions will probably need some form of support, and I think that during our incubation, we will need to make a Wicket 1.2.3 release available. Depending on the speed of our incubation, Wicket 1.3 will see the light as well before graduation. Mainly our concerns are how to proceed with those releases: bug fix releases and new minor releases. I think this is a pretty common requirement. While building a community in Apache, you don't want to disenfranchise your current community, and it makes sense to build a few last maintenance releases in the existing repository as you repackage, rebrand, and break compatibility. Your existing community presumably knows your plans and you will encourage them to migrate (on their own schedule) to the Apache version which will in future receive most of the community's attention. Bottom line, my understanding is there's nothing wrong with continuing to service your existing community on sf.net as you build community in Apache. Craig Craig Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://db.apache.org/jdo smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Friday 28 July 2006 00:17, Leo Simons wrote: > * release elsewhere, making sure to give things an appropriately different > name and making sure both users and the incubator PMC understand what it > all means and what is going on Oscar 1.0 became Apache Felix (incubating), and Richard Hall is still supporting the Oscar users, and I think even made a bugfix release of it. I guess you could ask the Incubator PMC for an explicit approval to continue to use Wicket for both the 1.x and 2.x branches, but only incubating the latter. (I could be wrong, but didn't SpamAssassin do something like that?) OTOH, as Leo points out, going through a couple of point releases while in the Incubator would also speed up the graduation process, i.e. you guys already operate the community closely to how ASF expects the project to be run, so the 'learning part' is (I think) fairly small, and the main issues are essentially; 1. Vet the IP. 2. Do the paper work. 4. Demonstrate the community ability, that I think you already got. And you could be out of the incubator in "no time"... If you choose to continue the releases outside the Incubator, then the incubation period will probably be longer, as your abilities are not in open view for the PMC to enjoy. Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
+0 (I'd love to see it happen, but don't expect to be able to contribute). Nice folks, and anything with Upayavira, Sylvain, and Alex involved is destined to conquer the world anyway :-) -Brian On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Upayavira wrote: The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a desire to incubate their project within the ASF. I personally think that Wicket would fit very well at Apache with its flavour of innovation and its strong, meritocracy based community. The proposal follows (which can also be found at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal) Regards, Upayavira = Wicket Proposal = This proposal outlines the creation of a new top-level Wicket project within the Apache Software Foundation. == Rationale == Wicket is a unique web application framework that focusses on bringing plain object oriented Java programming to the web tier. It is unique in it's focus amongst the (many) web frameworks that exist today. Due to it's unmanaged nature and reliance on plain Java, it is a very good match for frameworks like OSGi and Eclipse RSP. Wicket has been gaining a very steady increase in popularity, and with two books coming out and vastly improved new releases we are working on, we expect this trend to continue. We consider moving to Apache being an additional boost, and we hope it will open the way for possible future cooperation with other Apache projects. The maintainers of Wicket are interested in joining the Apache Software Foundation for several reasons: * Apache has a widely recognized name, which will help Wicket get an increased visibility and acceptance. * We'd like to enjoy the benefits of utilizing Apache's infrastructure and legal protection. * Most team members have been enthusiastic users of Apache software for many years and would like to be part of the family with it's get togethers etc. * It might open the door for cooperation with other projects, such as Felix or Jetspeed. * Apache seems to attract great communities around its projects, we hope joining Apache will help as make our growing community even bigger. * We hope to contribute to Apache's ongoing success by delivering an innovative, dynamic project with an enthusiastic user base. == Criteria == === Community === Wicket has striven to foster a diverse community that is open to everyone. It is released under a non-reciprocal license (Apache License 2.0) to encourage the maximum possible adoption by all potential users and developers. The Wicket community encourages suggestions and contributions from any potential user, and more developers have joined as contributors since the project's inception in 2004. === Meritocracy === Wicket was originally created by Jonathan Locke in April 2004. Then it was taken over in September 2004 by Eelco Hilenius, Johan Compagner and Martijn Dashorst. Chris Turner and Juergen Donnerstag were invited to join that same week based on their contributions and discussions. The project now has committers and users from around the world, and Jonathan Locke is back with the project again. The newer committers of the project joined in subsequent years by initially submitting patches, then having commit privileges for some of the applications (wicket-stuff), and then privileges over a larger range of applications. The project members understand the importance of letting motivated individuals contribute to the project after they have proven themselves. == Scope of Sub projects == Wicket is distributed as one large subversion tree, but contains several distinct parts: the core framework, a couple of extensions project that are endorsed by the core developers, an examples project (which includes a component reference), a quick start project and a developer sandbox. One of the extensions projects, called wicket-extensions, has a dual purpose. The first is to ensure the core project does not get too large, while still having a place to put interesting components and utility classes. The second purpose of that project is to provide a place where components can prove themselves before potentially graduating to the core project. Whilst Wicket has these various subprojects, access to the subversion tree is maintained with a single ACL. Once voted in as a committer, an individual will have access to the entire tree, and trust is used to ensure that they only touch the parts of the tree that they are knowledgeable enough to change. == Features == Wicket is a Java web application framework that takes simplicity, separation of concerns and ease of development to a whole new level. Wicket pages can be mocked up, previewed and later revised using standard WYSIWYG HTML design tools. Dynamic content processing and form handling is all handled in Java code using a first-class component model backed by POJO data beans that can easily be persisted using your favorite technology. == Initial Source == The s
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 23:54, Upayavira wrote: > The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a > desire to incubate their project within the ASF. +1, non-binding. The Wicket community is vibrant, diverse and already operating closely to the "Apache Way", and (if I may say so) outstanding support for us with special needs ;o) I am looking forward to see Wicket at ASF. Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 09:37:04AM -0700, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > >* release elsewhere, making sure to give things an appropriately different > > name and making sure both users and the incubator PMC understand what > > it all means and what is going on > > imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then > wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. and apache-wicket-2.0.5 looks even better, doesn't it? Incubation is not really about "looking good". The key point is that it is clear to everyone what-is-what and what is going on. And when a project enters incubation at apache, we (well, the project's committers. PMCs don't really "do" much) all strive to make very clear that this incubation thing is happening and what it means. Hence, I would much rather see a group of developers who would be happy to see a wicket-incubating-1.2.2 release since it shows they want to try just as hard as me to explain to their users what is being provided. > to me incubating says "not ready for > production use". it might mean something different in the apache context but > we cant expect all our existing users or those who stumble upon wicket for > the first time to enlighten themselves. ^^ difference of opinion there. I fully expect users to read and understand relevant licenses, disclaimers, notices, etc. Those that don't are doing themselves a disservice and I'm not all that inclined to cater for them; rather, I'm inclined to try and change their behaviour. If "user" equated to "my granny" I might think differently (probably not, and hence the world is full with big "I have read the above terms and agree to them" buttons), but AIUI users of wicket are software developers (and probably pretty good ones) themselves. > so i would rather release on our existing home at sf.net > > Leo, could you elaborate a bit more on "give things an appropriately > different name"? we just call those releases wicket (like what weve been > doing) as opposed to apache-wicket? I could but I'm not gonna. I don't speak for the incubator PMC and I'm not one of your mentors either. The best you'll get out of me is behaving like a broken record -- what needs to happen needs to be in the best interest of everyone for a broad definition of "everyone", and the incubator PMC needs to agree on that best interest judgement when it comes to projects incubating @ apache. We have a policy, there might be wiggle room, there might be a small or big change of policy, etc. This is apache after all, very little things are set in stone, and the way things change is well-documented. We've had this very discussion quite a few times over the last few years and the current policy pretty much reflects what the incubator community currently considers best practice, and for the exact details, the whys and the hows, I'll refer once again to our mailing list archives, since its not easily summarised, and I'd most likely do a bad job trying to. cheers! LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating says "not ready for production use". it might mean something different in the apache context but we cant expect all our existing users or those who stumble upon wicket for the first time to enlighten themselves. so i would rather release on our existing home at sf.net Yes i would also rather see a normal wicket-1.2.2.jar when we release an update to 1.2.x then a incubator name in it. 1.2.2 is a finished release and incubator doesn't say finished to me and that i guess goes for a lot of people. So i am +1 for option 2. And for 2.0 we should then really wait for getting out of incubator. Because the same rules apply to me. I am not pro for a final release with incubator in the name. johan
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
* release elsewhere, making sure to give things an appropriately different name and making sure both users and the incubator PMC understand what it all means and what is going on imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating says "not ready for production use". it might mean something different in the apache context but we cant expect all our existing users or those who stumble upon wicket for the first time to enlighten themselves. so i would rather release on our existing home at sf.net Leo, could you elaborate a bit more on "give things an appropriately different name"? we just call those releases wicket (like what weve been doing) as opposed to apache-wicket? thanks, -Igor
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Hey Martijn, guys, I'd really like to encourage you to take a look at how different established projects that joined apache through the incubator have handled this (spamassassin, stdcxx. roller, ofbiz, ...), as well as some of the discussion about this "releases from incubating projects" policy and its application that we've had through the years (see the archives for this mailing list on http://mail-archives.apache.org). On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 04:04:39PM +0200, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > We are very committed to support our community even when we're > undergoing incubation. This would typically mean that we might need to > release Wicket versions. As releases marked as incubated will probably > raise an eyebrow or two, what are our options? * just release marked as incubating, making sure users understand what it means or does not mean * release elsewhere, making sure to give things an appropriately different name and making sure both users and the incubator PMC understand what it all means and what is going on * don't release a "stable" build during incubation * discuss and propose some other alternative that is OK-ed by the incubator PMC * something I didn't think of I personally think the first option in the end is the best one. A project moving to apache and undergoing incubation *should* raise a few eyebrows, and users *should* wonder what that "incubating" label means and investigate. Chances are, once they find out, they won't worry all that much. What it comes down to is that apache, the incubator PMC, our public relations committee (PRC), and the wicket community in the end probably want roughly the same thing...namely, what is best for our community(ies). Of course, apache is a bit of a different beast from an average sourceforge project, with a few more different communities, with a non-profit foundation, lots of different and diverse interests to protect, a big and established brand, a trademark or two to protect, etc etc, so a bunch of differences flow from that. > On 7/27/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:54:15PM +0100, Upayavira wrote: > >> This would involve the need to be able to make releases of 1.2 and 1.3 > >> during incubation, as they have a current user base to serve that is > >> already using the product. > >> > >> The exact manner of producing these releases would need to be clearly > >> understood by the Wicket team before incubation can start. > > > >I'd suggest they read the documentation then :) > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases > > > >As far as the incubator is concerned, the neccessity to understand and > >follow rules & policies for releases is when a release is made, not > >before incubation starts... -- cheers, Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
BTW Thanks everyone for the support! On the release note: We are very committed to support our community even when we're undergoing incubation. This would typically mean that we might need to release Wicket versions. As releases marked as incubated will probably raise an eyebrow or two, what are our options? Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as apache? Does this need to go through the PMC as well? Especially our 1.2/1.3 product versions will probably need some form of support, and I think that during our incubation, we will need to make a Wicket 1.2.3 release available. Depending on the speed of our incubation, Wicket 1.3 will see the light as well before graduation. Mainly our concerns are how to proceed with those releases: bug fix releases and new minor releases. For those without intimate WIcket knowledge, Wicket 2.0 will be our next major release, and will break backwards compatiblity on a massive scale. A rename of the packages to the org.apache.wicket will be part of that release. To save our current users that have systems in production based on our 1.2 version, we would like to keep the current API (which starts with package wicket). 1.3 will be a support release for those users, with backports from some functionality taken from the 2.0 branch. Basically we have forked the project. Martijn On 7/27/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nice proposal. Seems like a no-brainer. More Dutchies at apache is always a good thing ;) On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:54:15PM +0100, Upayavira wrote: > === Versions === > > Wicket currently has three versions of their code base, 1.2 (the current > release), 1.3 (planned) and 2.0 (unreleased). > > We would like to keep all three versions on the same infrastructure, and > would thus like to bring all three versions over to Apache. Doesn't sound like a problem. > This would involve the need to be able to make releases of 1.2 and 1.3 > during incubation, as they have a current user base to serve that is > already using the product. > > The exact manner of producing these releases would need to be clearly > understood by the Wicket team before incubation can start. I'd suggest they read the documentation then :) http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases As far as the incubator is concerned, the neccessity to understand and follow rules & policies for releases is when a release is made, not before incubation starts... -- > === Package Naming === > > Wicket Java code uses the wicket.* package hierarchy. At this point, we > would propose that code in versions 1.2 and 1.3 would switch to ASF > servers, but maintain the wicket.* namespace, but code in 2.0 would > switch to an org.apache.wicket.* namespace. No issue there. -- > * Chris Turner is from the UK and works as an independent consultant. > He does not intend to move with us to Apache. What does that mean? Does he not think wicket should move to apache? Does he not want to sign a CLA? Is there consensus within wicket on this move or isn't there? LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Download Wicket 1.2.1 now! Embed Wicket components in your portals! -- http://wicketframework.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Leo Simons wrote: > Nice proposal. Seems like a no-brainer. More Dutchies at apache is > always a good thing ;) > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:54:15PM +0100, Upayavira wrote: >> === Versions === >> >> Wicket currently has three versions of their code base, 1.2 (the current >> release), 1.3 (planned) and 2.0 (unreleased). >> >> We would like to keep all three versions on the same infrastructure, and >> would thus like to bring all three versions over to Apache. > > Doesn't sound like a problem. Good. >> This would involve the need to be able to make releases of 1.2 and 1.3 >> during incubation, as they have a current user base to serve that is >> already using the product. >> >> The exact manner of producing these releases would need to be clearly >> understood by the Wicket team before incubation can start. > > I'd suggest they read the documentation then :) >http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases > > As far as the incubator is concerned, the neccessity to understand and > follow rules & policies for releases is when a release is made, not > before incubation starts... Those were my words. What I was meaning was that the Wicket team need to be sure that they can do releases before they're likely to be prepared to join the incubator. Releases must be possible under acceptable terms. Thanks for the pointer - I'll give that a read now. >> === Package Naming === >> >> Wicket Java code uses the wicket.* package hierarchy. At this point, we >> would propose that code in versions 1.2 and 1.3 would switch to ASF >> servers, but maintain the wicket.* namespace, but code in 2.0 would >> switch to an org.apache.wicket.* namespace. > > No issue there. > > -- > >> * Chris Turner is from the UK and works as an independent consultant. >> He does not intend to move with us to Apache. > > What does that mean? Does he not think wicket should move to apache? Does > he not want to sign a CLA? Is there consensus within wicket on this move > or isn't there? A previous committer, not involved now, but would be prepared to sign a CLA if it helped Wicket. Regards, Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
On 7/27/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nice proposal. Seems like a no-brainer. More Dutchies at apache is always a good thing ;) These Dutchies should get a life ;) > * Chris Turner is from the UK and works as an independent consultant. > He does not intend to move with us to Apache. What does that mean? Does he not think wicket should move to apache? Does he not want to sign a CLA? Is there consensus within wicket on this move or isn't there? He is +1 for the move, but he hasn't been active for the project for over a year, and he doesn't expect to be active anytime soon. So he suggested he wouldn't move with us. The whole team agrees on the proposal. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
> * Chris Turner is from the UK and works as an independent consultant. > He does not intend to move with us to Apache. What does that mean? Does he not think wicket should move to apache? Does he not want to sign a CLA? Is there consensus within wicket on this move or isn't there? Chris isn't an active committer anymore for wicket for a long time. And wants to "resign" completely when we move. johan
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Nice proposal. Seems like a no-brainer. More Dutchies at apache is always a good thing ;) On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:54:15PM +0100, Upayavira wrote: > === Versions === > > Wicket currently has three versions of their code base, 1.2 (the current > release), 1.3 (planned) and 2.0 (unreleased). > > We would like to keep all three versions on the same infrastructure, and > would thus like to bring all three versions over to Apache. Doesn't sound like a problem. > This would involve the need to be able to make releases of 1.2 and 1.3 > during incubation, as they have a current user base to serve that is > already using the product. > > The exact manner of producing these releases would need to be clearly > understood by the Wicket team before incubation can start. I'd suggest they read the documentation then :) http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases As far as the incubator is concerned, the neccessity to understand and follow rules & policies for releases is when a release is made, not before incubation starts... -- > === Package Naming === > > Wicket Java code uses the wicket.* package hierarchy. At this point, we > would propose that code in versions 1.2 and 1.3 would switch to ASF > servers, but maintain the wicket.* namespace, but code in 2.0 would > switch to an org.apache.wicket.* namespace. No issue there. -- > * Chris Turner is from the UK and works as an independent consultant. > He does not intend to move with us to Apache. What does that mean? Does he not think wicket should move to apache? Does he not want to sign a CLA? Is there consensus within wicket on this move or isn't there? LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Eelco, that would be great; see you there. Independent from the JSF standpoint, I'd like to give you guys a +1 But, that said, is non-binding. -Matthias On 7/26/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks Martin. If there would be a way to find ways to interoperate without loosing both our strong points, that would be great. We've looked into it last year, and concluded it can't really be done based on the current JSF specs, largely because Wicket is a non-declarative framework. But otoh, we're obviously not the greatest JSF experts, so we could always see if it is possible to talk things over while enjoying a beer at ApacheCon :) Anything that empowers fellow coders must be good. Eelco On 7/26/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I appreciate this addition to the web-framework competition at the > ASF. If you have any interest in interfacing to JSF and Apache > MyFaces, I'd be happy to help out. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 7/26/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This has my hearty +1! This is great news as I've always admired the > > framework and the community behind it, and this will further > > facilitate the inter-framework discussions we (Struts) has been > > periodically having with Wicket. > > > > Let me know of any way I can help, > > > > Don > > > > On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a > > > desire to incubate their project within the ASF. > > > > > > I personally think that Wicket would fit very well at Apache with its > > > flavour of innovation and its strong, meritocracy based community. > > > > > > The proposal follows (which can also be found at: > > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal) > > > > > > Regards, Upayavira > > > > > > = Wicket Proposal = > > > > > > This proposal outlines the creation of a new top-level Wicket project > > > within the Apache Software Foundation. > > > > > > == Rationale == > > > > > > Wicket is a unique web application framework that focusses on bringing > > > plain object oriented Java programming to the web tier. It is unique in > > > it's focus amongst the (many) web frameworks that exist today. Due to > > > it's unmanaged nature and reliance on plain Java, it is a very good > > > match for frameworks like OSGi and Eclipse RSP. Wicket has been gaining > > > a very steady increase in popularity, and with two books coming out and > > > vastly improved new releases we are working on, we expect this trend to > > > continue. We consider moving to Apache being an additional boost, and we > > > hope it will open the way for possible future cooperation with other > > > Apache projects. > > > > > > The maintainers of Wicket are interested in joining the Apache Software > > > Foundation for several reasons: > > > > > > * Apache has a widely recognized name, which will help Wicket get an > > > increased visibility and acceptance. > > > > > > * We'd like to enjoy the benefits of utilizing Apache's infrastructure > > > and legal protection. > > > > > > * Most team members have been enthusiastic users of Apache software for > > > many years and would like to be part of the family with it's get > > > togethers etc. > > > > > > * It might open the door for cooperation with other projects, such as > > > Felix or Jetspeed. > > > > > > * Apache seems to attract great communities around its projects, we > > > hope joining Apache will help as make our growing community even bigger. > > > > > > * We hope to contribute to Apache's ongoing success by delivering an > > > innovative, dynamic project with an enthusiastic user base. > > > > > > == Criteria == > > > > > > === Community === > > > > > > Wicket has striven to foster a diverse community that is open to > > > everyone. It is released > > > under a non-reciprocal license (Apache License 2.0) to encourage the > > > maximum possible adoption by all > > > potential users and developers. The Wicket community encourages > > > suggestions and > > > contributions from any potential user, and more developers have joined > > > as contributors > > > since the project's inception in 2004. > > > > > > === Meritocracy === > > > > > > Wicket was originally created by Jonathan Locke in April 2004. Then it > > > was taken over in September 2004 by Eelco Hilenius, Johan Compagner and > > > Martijn Dashorst. Chris Turner and Juergen Donnerstag were invited to > > > join that same week based on their contributions and discussions. The > > > project now has committers and users from around the world, and Jonathan > > > Locke is back with the project again. The newer committers of the > > > project joined in subsequent years by initially submitting patches, then > > > having commit privileges for some of the applications (wicket-stuff), > > > and then privileges over a larger range of applications. The project > > > members understand the importance of letting motivated individuals > > >
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Thanks Don! Thanks Upayavira, Alexa, Sylvain, Timothy and the others that have officially or unofficially championed Wicket. We hope that Wicket will make a valuable addition to Apache, and we are looking forward to get to know you guys better when we would be part of the Apache family. Cheers, Eelco On 7/26/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This has my hearty +1! This is great news as I've always admired the framework and the community behind it, and this will further facilitate the inter-framework discussions we (Struts) has been periodically having with Wicket. Let me know of any way I can help, Don On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a > desire to incubate their project within the ASF. > > I personally think that Wicket would fit very well at Apache with its > flavour of innovation and its strong, meritocracy based community. > > The proposal follows (which can also be found at: > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal) > > Regards, Upayavira > > = Wicket Proposal = > > This proposal outlines the creation of a new top-level Wicket project > within the Apache Software Foundation. > > == Rationale == > > Wicket is a unique web application framework that focusses on bringing > plain object oriented Java programming to the web tier. It is unique in > it's focus amongst the (many) web frameworks that exist today. Due to > it's unmanaged nature and reliance on plain Java, it is a very good > match for frameworks like OSGi and Eclipse RSP. Wicket has been gaining > a very steady increase in popularity, and with two books coming out and > vastly improved new releases we are working on, we expect this trend to > continue. We consider moving to Apache being an additional boost, and we > hope it will open the way for possible future cooperation with other > Apache projects. > > The maintainers of Wicket are interested in joining the Apache Software > Foundation for several reasons: > > * Apache has a widely recognized name, which will help Wicket get an > increased visibility and acceptance. > > * We'd like to enjoy the benefits of utilizing Apache's infrastructure > and legal protection. > > * Most team members have been enthusiastic users of Apache software for > many years and would like to be part of the family with it's get > togethers etc. > > * It might open the door for cooperation with other projects, such as > Felix or Jetspeed. > > * Apache seems to attract great communities around its projects, we > hope joining Apache will help as make our growing community even bigger. > > * We hope to contribute to Apache's ongoing success by delivering an > innovative, dynamic project with an enthusiastic user base. > > == Criteria == > > === Community === > > Wicket has striven to foster a diverse community that is open to > everyone. It is released > under a non-reciprocal license (Apache License 2.0) to encourage the > maximum possible adoption by all > potential users and developers. The Wicket community encourages > suggestions and > contributions from any potential user, and more developers have joined > as contributors > since the project's inception in 2004. > > === Meritocracy === > > Wicket was originally created by Jonathan Locke in April 2004. Then it > was taken over in September 2004 by Eelco Hilenius, Johan Compagner and > Martijn Dashorst. Chris Turner and Juergen Donnerstag were invited to > join that same week based on their contributions and discussions. The > project now has committers and users from around the world, and Jonathan > Locke is back with the project again. The newer committers of the > project joined in subsequent years by initially submitting patches, then > having commit privileges for some of the applications (wicket-stuff), > and then privileges over a larger range of applications. The project > members understand the importance of letting motivated individuals > contribute to the project after they have proven themselves. > > == Scope of Sub projects == > > Wicket is distributed as one large subversion tree, but contains several > distinct parts: the core framework, a couple of extensions project that > are endorsed by the core developers, an examples project (which includes > a component reference), a quick start project and a developer sandbox. > One of the extensions projects, called wicket-extensions, has a dual > purpose. The first is to ensure the core project does not get too large, > while still having a place to put interesting components and utility > classes. The second purpose of that project is to provide a place where > components can prove themselves before potentially graduating to the > core project. > > Whilst Wicket has these various subprojects, access to the subversion > tree is maintained with a single ACL. Once voted in as a committer, an > individual will have access to the entire tree, and trust is used to > ensure that they only touch t
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Thanks Martin. If there would be a way to find ways to interoperate without loosing both our strong points, that would be great. We've looked into it last year, and concluded it can't really be done based on the current JSF specs, largely because Wicket is a non-declarative framework. But otoh, we're obviously not the greatest JSF experts, so we could always see if it is possible to talk things over while enjoying a beer at ApacheCon :) Anything that empowers fellow coders must be good. Eelco On 7/26/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I appreciate this addition to the web-framework competition at the ASF. If you have any interest in interfacing to JSF and Apache MyFaces, I'd be happy to help out. regards, Martin On 7/26/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This has my hearty +1! This is great news as I've always admired the > framework and the community behind it, and this will further > facilitate the inter-framework discussions we (Struts) has been > periodically having with Wicket. > > Let me know of any way I can help, > > Don > > On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a > > desire to incubate their project within the ASF. > > > > I personally think that Wicket would fit very well at Apache with its > > flavour of innovation and its strong, meritocracy based community. > > > > The proposal follows (which can also be found at: > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal) > > > > Regards, Upayavira > > > > = Wicket Proposal = > > > > This proposal outlines the creation of a new top-level Wicket project > > within the Apache Software Foundation. > > > > == Rationale == > > > > Wicket is a unique web application framework that focusses on bringing > > plain object oriented Java programming to the web tier. It is unique in > > it's focus amongst the (many) web frameworks that exist today. Due to > > it's unmanaged nature and reliance on plain Java, it is a very good > > match for frameworks like OSGi and Eclipse RSP. Wicket has been gaining > > a very steady increase in popularity, and with two books coming out and > > vastly improved new releases we are working on, we expect this trend to > > continue. We consider moving to Apache being an additional boost, and we > > hope it will open the way for possible future cooperation with other > > Apache projects. > > > > The maintainers of Wicket are interested in joining the Apache Software > > Foundation for several reasons: > > > > * Apache has a widely recognized name, which will help Wicket get an > > increased visibility and acceptance. > > > > * We'd like to enjoy the benefits of utilizing Apache's infrastructure > > and legal protection. > > > > * Most team members have been enthusiastic users of Apache software for > > many years and would like to be part of the family with it's get > > togethers etc. > > > > * It might open the door for cooperation with other projects, such as > > Felix or Jetspeed. > > > > * Apache seems to attract great communities around its projects, we > > hope joining Apache will help as make our growing community even bigger. > > > > * We hope to contribute to Apache's ongoing success by delivering an > > innovative, dynamic project with an enthusiastic user base. > > > > == Criteria == > > > > === Community === > > > > Wicket has striven to foster a diverse community that is open to > > everyone. It is released > > under a non-reciprocal license (Apache License 2.0) to encourage the > > maximum possible adoption by all > > potential users and developers. The Wicket community encourages > > suggestions and > > contributions from any potential user, and more developers have joined > > as contributors > > since the project's inception in 2004. > > > > === Meritocracy === > > > > Wicket was originally created by Jonathan Locke in April 2004. Then it > > was taken over in September 2004 by Eelco Hilenius, Johan Compagner and > > Martijn Dashorst. Chris Turner and Juergen Donnerstag were invited to > > join that same week based on their contributions and discussions. The > > project now has committers and users from around the world, and Jonathan > > Locke is back with the project again. The newer committers of the > > project joined in subsequent years by initially submitting patches, then > > having commit privileges for some of the applications (wicket-stuff), > > and then privileges over a larger range of applications. The project > > members understand the importance of letting motivated individuals > > contribute to the project after they have proven themselves. > > > > == Scope of Sub projects == > > > > Wicket is distributed as one large subversion tree, but contains several > > distinct parts: the core framework, a couple of extensions project that > > are endorsed by the core developers, an examples project (which includes > > a component reference), a quick start project and a developer sandbox.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Hi, I appreciate this addition to the web-framework competition at the ASF. If you have any interest in interfacing to JSF and Apache MyFaces, I'd be happy to help out. regards, Martin On 7/26/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This has my hearty +1! This is great news as I've always admired the framework and the community behind it, and this will further facilitate the inter-framework discussions we (Struts) has been periodically having with Wicket. Let me know of any way I can help, Don On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a > desire to incubate their project within the ASF. > > I personally think that Wicket would fit very well at Apache with its > flavour of innovation and its strong, meritocracy based community. > > The proposal follows (which can also be found at: > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal) > > Regards, Upayavira > > = Wicket Proposal = > > This proposal outlines the creation of a new top-level Wicket project > within the Apache Software Foundation. > > == Rationale == > > Wicket is a unique web application framework that focusses on bringing > plain object oriented Java programming to the web tier. It is unique in > it's focus amongst the (many) web frameworks that exist today. Due to > it's unmanaged nature and reliance on plain Java, it is a very good > match for frameworks like OSGi and Eclipse RSP. Wicket has been gaining > a very steady increase in popularity, and with two books coming out and > vastly improved new releases we are working on, we expect this trend to > continue. We consider moving to Apache being an additional boost, and we > hope it will open the way for possible future cooperation with other > Apache projects. > > The maintainers of Wicket are interested in joining the Apache Software > Foundation for several reasons: > > * Apache has a widely recognized name, which will help Wicket get an > increased visibility and acceptance. > > * We'd like to enjoy the benefits of utilizing Apache's infrastructure > and legal protection. > > * Most team members have been enthusiastic users of Apache software for > many years and would like to be part of the family with it's get > togethers etc. > > * It might open the door for cooperation with other projects, such as > Felix or Jetspeed. > > * Apache seems to attract great communities around its projects, we > hope joining Apache will help as make our growing community even bigger. > > * We hope to contribute to Apache's ongoing success by delivering an > innovative, dynamic project with an enthusiastic user base. > > == Criteria == > > === Community === > > Wicket has striven to foster a diverse community that is open to > everyone. It is released > under a non-reciprocal license (Apache License 2.0) to encourage the > maximum possible adoption by all > potential users and developers. The Wicket community encourages > suggestions and > contributions from any potential user, and more developers have joined > as contributors > since the project's inception in 2004. > > === Meritocracy === > > Wicket was originally created by Jonathan Locke in April 2004. Then it > was taken over in September 2004 by Eelco Hilenius, Johan Compagner and > Martijn Dashorst. Chris Turner and Juergen Donnerstag were invited to > join that same week based on their contributions and discussions. The > project now has committers and users from around the world, and Jonathan > Locke is back with the project again. The newer committers of the > project joined in subsequent years by initially submitting patches, then > having commit privileges for some of the applications (wicket-stuff), > and then privileges over a larger range of applications. The project > members understand the importance of letting motivated individuals > contribute to the project after they have proven themselves. > > == Scope of Sub projects == > > Wicket is distributed as one large subversion tree, but contains several > distinct parts: the core framework, a couple of extensions project that > are endorsed by the core developers, an examples project (which includes > a component reference), a quick start project and a developer sandbox. > One of the extensions projects, called wicket-extensions, has a dual > purpose. The first is to ensure the core project does not get too large, > while still having a place to put interesting components and utility > classes. The second purpose of that project is to provide a place where > components can prove themselves before potentially graduating to the > core project. > > Whilst Wicket has these various subprojects, access to the subversion > tree is maintained with a single ACL. Once voted in as a committer, an > individual will have access to the entire tree, and trust is used to > ensure that they only touch the parts of the tree that they are > knowledgeable enough to change. > > == Features == > > Wicket is a Java web appl
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
This has my hearty +1! This is great news as I've always admired the framework and the community behind it, and this will further facilitate the inter-framework discussions we (Struts) has been periodically having with Wicket. Let me know of any way I can help, Don On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a desire to incubate their project within the ASF. I personally think that Wicket would fit very well at Apache with its flavour of innovation and its strong, meritocracy based community. The proposal follows (which can also be found at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal) Regards, Upayavira = Wicket Proposal = This proposal outlines the creation of a new top-level Wicket project within the Apache Software Foundation. == Rationale == Wicket is a unique web application framework that focusses on bringing plain object oriented Java programming to the web tier. It is unique in it's focus amongst the (many) web frameworks that exist today. Due to it's unmanaged nature and reliance on plain Java, it is a very good match for frameworks like OSGi and Eclipse RSP. Wicket has been gaining a very steady increase in popularity, and with two books coming out and vastly improved new releases we are working on, we expect this trend to continue. We consider moving to Apache being an additional boost, and we hope it will open the way for possible future cooperation with other Apache projects. The maintainers of Wicket are interested in joining the Apache Software Foundation for several reasons: * Apache has a widely recognized name, which will help Wicket get an increased visibility and acceptance. * We'd like to enjoy the benefits of utilizing Apache's infrastructure and legal protection. * Most team members have been enthusiastic users of Apache software for many years and would like to be part of the family with it's get togethers etc. * It might open the door for cooperation with other projects, such as Felix or Jetspeed. * Apache seems to attract great communities around its projects, we hope joining Apache will help as make our growing community even bigger. * We hope to contribute to Apache's ongoing success by delivering an innovative, dynamic project with an enthusiastic user base. == Criteria == === Community === Wicket has striven to foster a diverse community that is open to everyone. It is released under a non-reciprocal license (Apache License 2.0) to encourage the maximum possible adoption by all potential users and developers. The Wicket community encourages suggestions and contributions from any potential user, and more developers have joined as contributors since the project's inception in 2004. === Meritocracy === Wicket was originally created by Jonathan Locke in April 2004. Then it was taken over in September 2004 by Eelco Hilenius, Johan Compagner and Martijn Dashorst. Chris Turner and Juergen Donnerstag were invited to join that same week based on their contributions and discussions. The project now has committers and users from around the world, and Jonathan Locke is back with the project again. The newer committers of the project joined in subsequent years by initially submitting patches, then having commit privileges for some of the applications (wicket-stuff), and then privileges over a larger range of applications. The project members understand the importance of letting motivated individuals contribute to the project after they have proven themselves. == Scope of Sub projects == Wicket is distributed as one large subversion tree, but contains several distinct parts: the core framework, a couple of extensions project that are endorsed by the core developers, an examples project (which includes a component reference), a quick start project and a developer sandbox. One of the extensions projects, called wicket-extensions, has a dual purpose. The first is to ensure the core project does not get too large, while still having a place to put interesting components and utility classes. The second purpose of that project is to provide a place where components can prove themselves before potentially graduating to the core project. Whilst Wicket has these various subprojects, access to the subversion tree is maintained with a single ACL. Once voted in as a committer, an individual will have access to the entire tree, and trust is used to ensure that they only touch the parts of the tree that they are knowledgeable enough to change. == Features == Wicket is a Java web application framework that takes simplicity, separation of concerns and ease of development to a whole new level. Wicket pages can be mocked up, previewed and later revised using standard WYSIWYG HTML design tools. Dynamic content processing and form handling is all handled in Java code using a first-class component model backed by POJO data beans that can easily be persisted using your favorite technology. == Initi
