Serge Knystautas wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Key ASF individuals are joining these discussions, on weblogs and
various discussion forums. But the ASF as a whole is silent.
In lieu of forming a statement for the ASF as a whole, what about
organizing/encouraging/guiding people who want to participate
eparated :-)
Costin
At 12:03 PM 11/27/2003 -0800, Costin Manolache wrote:
There are many ways membership could be defined ( but it isn't ).
Committers are assigning the (copy)rights of their work to ASF - and
as was mentioned, the members
"own" the code and all the IP of ASF. It w
There are many ways membership could be defined ( but it isn't ).
Committers are assigning the (copy)rights of their work to ASF - and as
was mentioned, the members
"own" the code and all the IP of ASF. It would be nice ( and fair !) to
have the membership based on some
objective criteria on co
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Nono, you didn't get my point: I think it's possible to get *existing*
> java classes and re-compile them into CLI.
Why would you do that ? AFAIK the CLI is more complex ( i.e. more bugs,
harder to port, harder to optimize ) than the JVM. And the
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> Now, if we put a JVM inside the Apache process scope, we end up with the
> same problem we had with Apache 1.3, how in the world am I going to be able
> to share a session between a JVM inside a multithreaded process A and the
> clone of that same JVM i
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:42:12PM -0700, Costin Manolache wrote:
> >...
> > Dot net is actually doing almost the same mistake as java (AFAIK)- they
> > support other languages, but only syntactically ( like java does with the
> &
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> on 6/24/03 6:55 AM Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> > Then perhaps my observation means absolutely nothing - and I should really
> > try to get my mind around a fundamentally different development model (and
> > some aspect you call WORA).
>
> Oh,
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:32:08AM +0100, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> >...
> > Best way of doing things? Writing a connector for the servlet container
> > using JNI that uses unix sockets, named pipes, or something which is
> > actually faster than the usual TC
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > Could you also upload the jars, in the binary directory ? It would
> > simplify
> > the life of those who want to automatically download dependencies.
>
> gladly but first a couple of questions:
>
> 1. is this someone that we should now be do
On 1 Mar 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 11:12, Costin Manolache wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > It is also redundant information - each jar has a well-defined Manifest
> > that should include version.
> &
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Having a file encode --.type has been very useful
> for us.
>
> Yes, it's often different from what the project creates and distributes, but
> I (and others)
> have been bitten by
> commons-logging.jar, struts.jar, junit.jar so many times, that see
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Collaboration does happen, now. It's not a future waiting to happen.
> > Is there something that's not happening that specifically needs to be
> > looked at?
>
> That's the irony. As far as I can see, most of the build processes could
> converge a
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Seeing the interest it has raised, I tend to think think it's time to
> get the act together and start working on it. I'd like to propose this
> for incubation ASAP, so to not loose momentum.
> ...
>
> Codebases or part of codebases that could co
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> - the ASF repository shall contain ASF jars, which don't
>require oversight beyond the issuing PMC.
> - the ASF repository should contain shared third party
>jars for which the ASF has approved their use and
>distribution.
> - the ASF
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Few simple questions:
> >
> > Should we use 2 different dirs for src and binary distribution ? Or
> > maybe 3 dirs ( src, bin, doc ) ?
>
> Why duplicate the existing distributions? They're available, mirrored and
> well understood.
+1
I was j
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In other words - as long as maven decisions affect only maven - I don't
> > care. But if it affects other projects, and the repository certainly does
> > - then the PMCs of those projects or the apache community are the ones
> > that deci
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Do we really need to have one big community? We've fostered a tight knit
> > community of maven developers, even if they are not so tight with other
> > parts of Apache.
>
> No, I don't believe that we need to be all one community. There is
> relat
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> differing views on how to make use of the repository. Costin and I seem to
> be of the option that a significant portion of the value of the repository
> comes from sharing and centralizing the managment of ASF-acceptable third
> party jars.
Not enti
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Nick Chalko wrote:
> So I am for
> /projectname/[subproject]/[version]/file[-version].jar
>
> That leo suggested.
I'm not sure that's what Leo suggested.
Having the version in both dir and jar seems a bit too much. The common
practice in many projects ( at least in jakarta
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Leo Simons wrote:
> >Should we use 2 different dirs for src and binary distribution ? Or maybe
> >3 dirs ( src, bin, doc ) ?
> >
> based on current practice at http://www.ibiblio.org/maven, the answer to
> both is "no". A quick
> glance at the java projects @ http://www.apa
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > Since I am the one who asked why Ant and Maven aren't related projects under
> > a PMC, you might was well yell at me for having the temerity to ask a rather
> > obvious question. But for all of your railing this morning, you never
> > actually answered th
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > all PMCs whose committers 'commit' to the repository should maintain
> > some oversight.
>
> Infrastructure hasn't considered that a good model for the Wiki, and I don't
> know that it would work any better for the repository. Someone needs to
> ta
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Leo Simons wrote:
> files in /dist/java-repository besides perhaps HEADER.html and
> README.htmls...
Few simple questions:
Should we use 2 different dirs for src and binary distribution ? Or maybe
3 dirs ( src, bin, doc ) ?
Are "milestone" builds acceptable ? Should we g
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > I don't get these GPL people who license their work as GPL, but don't
> > want the viral aspect...
>
> I believe that they are trying to separate the licensing of the source code
> vs. the binary. If you want to use their SOURCE, you have to keep th
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM Public License
> > (the pre-Jakarta BSF, for example) and the MPL (Rhino). The following
> > public domain components are also approved: Antlr and Doug Lea's
> > concurrency package.
>
> > Lic
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Sam Ruby wrote:
> In two weeks, there is a board meeting. At that time, I would like to
> be able to report that the contents of the Maven repository conforms to
> the policies of the Apache Software Foundation.
>
> Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM P
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >
> >
> > in fact, until such time as a clear determination
> >is made, i'm ruling that it is *not* allowed. it is not worth the
> >risk. so lgpl-licensed materials in the asf repositories are
> >forbidden until a final decision is made.
That's fin
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Ben Hyde wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> > My point was: if someone posts a mail with pointers to warez or porn or
> > spam - it will get through and will be archived in the mailing list
> > archives.
>
> Humm, are we arguing with the stop s
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> > Are we now going to have similar "oversight" over the mailing lists and
> > archives ? If someone posts a pointer to warez or porn on one of the lists
> > -
Are we now going to have similar "oversight" over the mailing lists and
archives ? If someone posts a pointer to warez or porn on one of the lists
- are we going to have to remove it from archives ?
Sorry, but I fail to see the difference between wiki and the mailing
lists. Both are open to an
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Henri Gomez wrote:
> - Did there is a need for a weblog package installed at apache.org
>where commiters could put notes about THEIR ASF related works ?
+1
I don't think it is a "need" - but it would be a good idea.
I know there are free or cheap hosting sites - but the
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Thus, the ASF is governed by the community it most directly serves
> -- the people collaborating within its projects.
>
> That is the guiding principle for all resources spend. That is the spirit
> which the board has to make sure we
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:16, Sam Ruby wrote:
> In http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-01-17-meeting-minutes.html, a
> meeting that you were in physical attendance, one of the roles of the
> PMC was to act as the veto of last resort. One such instance where I
> would personally exercise such
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 04:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> not strictly true, although mostly. a product release may be effectively
> vetoed by the asf officer with oversight of the project, if it appears
> in that person's judgement that releasing it would be the Wrong Thing
I'm curious - are
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 07:25, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Here is what I would have liked to see happening in Tomcat:
What you would have liked is your problem. As I repeated quite a few
times and you don't seem to hear is that the decision about a release
is a majority vote and can't be vetoed - e
So far it seems Stefano ( who is not currently a very active tomcat
developer) is pissed off by the decisions made on tomcat-dev.
I don't see too many tomcat developers flaming each other.
IMHO most ( or all ) tomcat developers agree that both code bases
had some good and some bad parts. I also th
On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 04:25, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Please, let me ask you a few questions. I would be very happy if you or
> others could answer them:
>
> 1) was Catalina voted as Tomcat 4.0 explicitly by the majority of the
> tomcat dev community?
True.
> 2) did the above vote take pl
Ceki,
I think you got your analogy mixed up completely :-)
The communism is characterized by dictatorship ( not always benevolent).
Most western countries are characterized by democracy.
The communism didn't fall because of ideology - I can tell you the
ideology had little to do with the realit
On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 14:46, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> * On 2002-11-08 at 17:37,
> Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> >
> > A side effect of the 'revolution' rules is that a veto can be
> > overriden - nobody can ve
In my personal opinion they are just redundant :-)
The rule that matter is that the community control the code and the name
- a majority vote in the community can decide ultimately what happens.
This is a particular case ( again IMO ) of the "releases are majority
votes and can't be vetoed".
A
The quick question - is [EMAIL PROTECTED] mirrored into a gmane news
group ?
If not - is there any name preference ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is gmane.comp.jakarta.general - and most jakarta lists
are under comp.jakarta. Cocoon is under text.xml.cocoon.* and some
apache lists are under comp.apache.*
I
On Thu, 2002-11-07 at 08:01, Sam Ruby wrote:
> I differ with that rendition, and believe that it is harmful to the
> community for it to be propogated.
I also differ with the rendition ( almost all of it ), and need
to point that every tomcat release so far ( except the very first one -
Sam ma
Sounds good.
I think more details on 'veto' validity are needed - we had a lot
of problems in this issue. Like the second opinion.
It should also include some mention on release and codebase
decisions ( i.e. majority vote for releases, and clarification
on the 'revolution' rules ).
I don't kno
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 16:45, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 16:03, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Costin Manolache wrote:
> >>
> >>>Can someone summarize what's wrong with th
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 16:03, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> > Can someone summarize what's wrong with the gump descriptor used by
> > all jakarta and xml projects ?
> >
> > I understand we may need to add more stuff ( maybe using so
Can someone summarize what's wrong with the gump descriptor used by
all jakarta and xml projects ?
I understand we may need to add more stuff ( maybe using some ns: ),
but I don't quite understand why we need to change existing definitions.
Costin
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 14:08, John Keyes wrot
On a related issue - I think it would be very nice to include a link to
gmane news gateway. There are quite a few people using it ( I'm no
longer directly subscribed to any list ), and I think it should be at
least mentioned.
I don't know if a news server taking the feed for US distribution or ou
I partially agree with Dirk's opinion. A very large PMC where people
don't feel a direct need to participate is wrong.
That's the reason I think 'active participants who volunteer for PMC'
is the right solution. If someone doesn't feel 'active' in jakarta or
doesn't have the time or wish to act
I do agree with every point of the proposal - but I can't be fully +1
until the non-normative guidelines are well defined.
I believe everyone who is actively developing code and participate in
jakarta should have the option ( and be encouraged ) to be in the
jakarta PMC.
That's the goal ( IMO
> VOTE 1: would you like to make it possible for non-committers to read
> this mail list thru a web archive?
>
> [X] +1 yes, let's make it readable
> [ ] 0 don't know/don't care
> [ ] -1 no, let's keep it private
>
>
> - o -
>
>
> VOTE 2: would you li
On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 06:38, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> View 1: Open the list completely, anyone can subscribe, post and read
> the archive
+1
> View 2: Keep the list open only to committers, members and invitees
> (highly contributive developers and users) so far as posting goes,
> however
51 matches
Mail list logo
