Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an aside, one of the issues we had when coming up with Maven's
repository format, is that often artifacts (jars, wars, ears etc), will
get left on the filesystem outside of a repository.
Think rpms for example.
Having a file encode --.type h
> How much should be encoded in a URI, and how much in data associated with
> the URI? You seem to be trying to encode all of the data into the URI
> naming space. Why not have a single URI for the target, and then trigger
> behavior based upon the content? That would seem more extensible and l
Dion,
can you please use the newly created [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list (thanks,
Sam) for this sort of topics?
Thanks and cheers,
Erik
Sam Ruby wrote:
I'm in a "just do it" kind of mood.
I just created a [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. Noel is the initial moderator.
If/when there is an infrastr
"Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/03/2003 05:36:38
AM:
[snip]
> I've gotten bit by the opposite problem (changing version number in a
JAR
> filename causing broken build scripts) just as often.
>
> Wouldn't a reasonable approach to this problem be to make searches for
> "com
Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/03/2003 03:12:55 AM:
> 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
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2003 06:45:42 AM:
[snip]
> How much should be encoded in a URI, and how much in data associated
with
> the URI? You seem to be trying to encode all of the data into the URI
> naming space. Why not have a single URI for the target, and then
t
Nick Chalko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2003 05:09:50 AM:
> A somewhat standard layout is the important part.
>
> If we are changing current practice I think
>
> project/[subproject]/version/(jar|zip|gz|docs|liscenses)
> is very good.
Sub project is, IMHO, way too fragile to be part of
> Craig R McClanahan writes:
> Wouldn't a reasonable approach to this problem be to make searches
> for "commons-foo.jar" return the latest released version, while
> searches for "commons-foo-x.y.jar" would return that particular
> version? Then, you can have it either way. On the former, one
Costin Manolache wrote:
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.
But I agree - re
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.
> >
>
> Unfortunately practice and obs
> Wouldn't a reasonable approach to this problem be to make searches for
> "commons-foo.jar" return the latest released version, while searches for
> "commons-foo-x.y.jar" would return that particular version? Then, you can
> have it either way. On the former, one might also support a mode that
>
Craig,
> If we make the two choices (which version and which local name)
> independent request parameters, we've covered all the
> combinations and permuations.
The idea I had was for the request URI to be project based. The response to
that stable URI would be descriptor content. Part of the d
Nick,
> Two problems here
> * The uri to find a needed jar.
> * How to store the jar on the local filesystem
Does the URI (request) and descriptor (response) solution I proposed not
address those goals? That approach decoupled the naming systems.
--- Noel
-
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Nick Chalko wrote:
> I think we should handle these cases
>
> * uri to find
> o Specific version
> o latest released. (blank )
> o latest nightly
> * Jar name on local filesystem
> o with complete version
> o without
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
[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, str
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 12:08:36 +0100
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: community@apache.org
> To: community@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [proposal] daedalus jar repository
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wro
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.
>
Unfortunately practice and observation show this not to be the case in
many situation
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an aside, one of the issues we had when coming up with Maven's
repository format, is that often artifacts (jars, wars, ears etc), will
get left on the filesystem outside of a repository.
Think rpms for example.
Having a file encode --.type has been very
useful for
As an aside, one of the issues we had when coming up with Maven's repository format, is that often artifacts (jars, wars, ears etc), willget left on the filesystem outside of a repository. Think rpms for example. Having a file encode --.type has been very useful for us. Yes, it's often different f
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Nick,
As long as you want to start with first principles ...
project/[subproject]/version/(jar|zip|gz|docs|liscenses)
is very good.
How much should be encoded in a URI, and how much in data associated with
the URI? You seem to be trying to encode all of the data into
Nick,
As long as you want to start with first principles ...
> >If we have a layout and metadata we agree on - any tool could work.
> >If it is an ant task or a perl program or we just rsync - it doesn't
> >matter.
> A somewhat standard layout is the important part.
> project/[subproject]/versi
Costin Manolache wrote:
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
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
Are you arguing that the ASF should stop striving to keep licenses
compatible?
No. Where did you get that idea?
Probably entirely from my own paranoia that people would rather write
code than deliver easy to adopt software. My apologies. - ben
---
Henri Gomez wrote:
FYI, the JPackage project where I'm also involved, as set up
a Java RPM centric distribution where you could find many
(still not all) apache's java projects.
http://.jpackage.org/
Hi, Henry. I'm using them and they are awful to simplify maintenance of
linux rpm based machin
Henri Gomez wrote, On 28/02/2003 15.08:
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi all,
(sorry for the massive crosspost up front, as this is a proposal that
should in the end come from the various PMCs towards the
infrastructure team I'm doing lots of CCing, just once)
FYI, the JPackage project where I'm also involv
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi all,
(sorry for the massive crosspost up front, as this is a proposal that
should in the end come from the various PMCs towards the infrastructure
team I'm doing lots of CCing, just once)
FYI, the JPackage project where I'm also involved, as set up
a Java RPM centric distribu
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "lead" ( do you propose a new PMC with Dion as
chair ? ). I'm +1 on Dion - however the layout and recommendations must be
decided by the normal apache community process
I meant as in "chair", except that it wouldn't be a PMC, so I don't know if
> Not sure what you mean by "lead" ( do you propose a new PMC with Dion as
> chair ? ). I'm +1 on Dion - however the layout and recommendations must be
> decided by the normal apache community process
I meant as in "chair", except that it wouldn't be a PMC, so I don't know if
the word "chair" woul
--- Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 t
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
Ben Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 28/02/2003 01:46:43 AM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You know that ASF jars aren't 'freely' distributable, right? The
> > license
> > specifies some conditions on binary distribution.
>
[snip good stuff]
> Are you arguing that the ASF should stop striving
Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27/02/2003 11:33:28 AM:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:12:35AM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >...
> > > sourcecode under its own license. Yes, binary, but it is the best
first
> > > step and it solves a real need.
> >
> > Just to play devils advocate, wh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know that ASF jars aren't 'freely' distributable, right? The
license
specifies some conditions on binary distribution.
All the open source sub-communities have various conventions about how
to manage the legal tangles around IPR. We, the foundation, currently
have
Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27/02/2003 08:28:05 AM:
> 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 sha
Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27/02/2003 10:18:26
AM:
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > "can we link to software under license X?",
>
> > And what does 'linking' mean for languages used by the ASF, e.g. Java,
> > PHP, Perl, scripting languages like J
Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
> Are "milestone" builds
From: Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as
> > it's scope.
>
> Hi Dion,
>
> Your subject got my attention :-) Is there an Ant PMC issue here? We're
Nope, no ant pmc issue from me.
> cert
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:12:35AM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> > sourcecode under its own license. Yes, binary, but it is the best first
> > step and it solves a real need.
>
> Just to play devils advocate, what is that need, Given that there current
> is a repository distributing ASF
--On Wednesday, February 26, 2003 6:15 PM +0100 Leo Simons
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
my take: keep everything. Again, policy should be the same as for
the contents of /dist/. I dunno if there is an asf-wide policy for
that...looking at http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/old/, those guys
don't shar
My opinion is that the board should take this suggestion very seriously.
Original Message
Subject: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository (was: primary
distribution location)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:54:20 -0500
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rep
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > "can we link to software under license X?",
> And what does 'linking' mean for languages used by the ASF, e.g. Java,
> PHP, Perl, scripting languages like Javascript?
Actually - in a lot of cases - that is not 'our' problem. Best we can do
is ask
Now I've gone from digest to individual emails, keeping up might be
easier...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 27/02/2003 03:08:17 AM:
> --
> From: Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> yep. So don't drop the binary until you have a) policy
> you get an ok on [sharing and centralizing the managment
> of ASF-acceptable third party jars] from the board and/or
> the infrastructure team, and consensus across the community,
> and I'll be absolutely 100% behind any such plan.
I can't see how it would be acceptable to anyone without all of
Leo Simons wrote:
you get an ok on that from the board and/or the infrastructure team,
and consensus across the
community, and I'll be absolutely 100% behind any such plan.
scratch that, I'm in a "Just Do It" mood today. Just sent a message to
the board (who are
reading already anyway, but hey,
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
As you have seen from some of our exchange and Costin's comments, there are
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
+1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Costin,
I agree with pretty much all of your particulars. To summarize, if I might:
- 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 app
Costin,
I agree with pretty much all of your particulars. To summarize, if I might:
- 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
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:01:06PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>...
> As I understand it, the ASF is flattening the hierarchy, but I see top-level
> projects established around synergistic semantic domains, not code bases.
There is a bit of tension between those two, but generally: yes. There is
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 16:28, Costin Manolache wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Well, Maven doesn't seem to be that concerned with duplication, and values
> the competition :-) To paraphrase Jason - what's wrong with multiple
> competing repositories ? A smart tool should
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
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
If the fundamental philosophy of the ASF is Community First, how do you feel
that you contributed to that today?
Quite simple: the ASF has the honour to host mr. Van Zyl's project on
its servers. In return, they get flamed with FUD and ownership.
Bah.
--
Steven Noels
James Strachan wrote:
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, I didn't ask about Gump, Centipede or Ruper. I asked about Ant and
Maven. Start there. And as far as I'm concerned, if Build Project X
sucks
(a logical antecedent for the sake of discussion), then an Ant/Maven PMC
could reso
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
Jason van Zyl wrote:
What irks the hell out of me is people like Nicola constantly whining
about being excluded. Excluded from what?
I find this message quite interesting in this context:
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@jakarta.apache.org/msg07046.html
Expecially your signature.
--
Stefano Mazz
James,
> 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
relatively little in common between, for example, Tomc
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon
resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to
something like those of Ant or Cocoon: "The Maven Project will deal with
the Maven system".
FYI, the ASF Board stated clearly that this '
On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 12:53 PM, James Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 15:52, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be
given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the
Maven developers want to be left entirely alo
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 15:52, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be
> > given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the
> > Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern?
>
> Well, I'm not entirely s
> All I'm getting out of these discussions is that we're
> capable of having long winded foodfights about turf.
> This is an important problem that needs to get solved.
I wish that I were not starting to see this in a similar vein.
With respect to the repository, and classpaths, I have proposed t
> I thought the whole reason that Ant, Avalon, Cocoon, James et al moved top
> level (out of Jakarta) was to get rid of top level umbrella PMCs so that
> each project has its own PMC.
James,
As I understand it, the ASF is flattening the hierarchy, but I see top-level
projects established around s
Jason,
> > why aren't Ant and Maven two related projects under a single PMC?
> Well, because when Ant formed they had no desire to be grouped with
> Maven
Based upon your attitude today towards Greg, Sam, Nicola (who isn't even
here, but was accused of whining), etc., I can't say that I blame th
> To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be
> given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the
> Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern?
Well, I'm not entirely sure how wanting to be left alone fits into an
atmosphere of co
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> I'm not picking lint out of belly button and weaving a story here. I
> take what I see on the board list and I did speak with on the phone for
> about 40 minutes so I have, even if limited, some idea of how you're
> affected. I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy I'm just
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 14:49, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> okey, this ticked my bogometer.
>
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> > My comments cannot be misinterpreted.
>
> an interesting position. :-)
>
> > My observations relate strictly to the behaviour of the board
> > in their relationship with
- Original Message -
From: "Dirk-Willem van Gulik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
> Is there any synergy - or is the most we can hope for a 'sourceforg
Costin Manolache wrote:
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.
The [] imply optional. But my main point is Centipede will adapt to
whatever Apache uses.
Havi
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
okey, this ticked my bogometer.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> My comments cannot be misinterpreted.
an interesting position. :-)
> My observations relate strictly to the behaviour of the board
> in their relationship with Sam.
indeed: your observations. subjective opinion, in other words,
not the
Leo,
As you have seen from some of our exchange and Costin's comments, there are
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-acceptabl
My proposal is that Dion Gillard be asked to chair a repository committee.
He is the most familar with the issues, he works with a lot of the Java
technologies (Tomcat, Ant, Maven, James, Jetspeed, Struts, Turbine), and
although he is a Maven fan, he is agnostic in terms of ensuring that all
build
Leo Simons wrote:
But OTOH, I don't feel like spending more energy arguing than it would
take to set up those
multiple repos.
Maybe this is a bikeshed and some one should just do it.
However I do feel the Apache Jar Repository is going to be a very
popular bike shed. So some planning is warant
Leo Simons wrote:
do that, but the big disadvantage with deviating from the existing
maven/centipede/ruper
practice is that it deviates from that practice, thus requiring work
and reducing compatibility. If you
feel like holding a vote, by all means feel free, I'll probably vote
-1 for deviating
Greg Stein wrote:
The Board exists to help projects in their work. We exist to protect the ASF
to ensure that it will continue to exist, to help projects. Our intent is to
let projects do whatever they feel is right and correct, subject to the
constraints of the operation of the ASF and to what we
Costin Manolache wrote:
What policy should we use for removing older versions ( or we just keep
everything ) ?
my take: keep everything. Again, policy should be the same as for the
contents of /dist/. I dunno
if there is an asf-wide policy for that...looking at
http://www.apache.org/dist
> I think synergy is worth aiming for; reinventing the wheel (and mainting
> it) in several places is propably not worth it in the long run.
That's my core philosophy of software development.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:43:05AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>...
> Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon
> resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to
> something like those of Ant or Cocoon: "The Maven Project will deal with
> the Maven
Costin Manolache wrote:
I see no problem if Ant, Gump, Centipede cooperate on the jar repository -
and maven doesn't.
uhm, I would like to see all of the above and the rest of us cooperate
on this thing. The value
of everyone's work on setting up and maintaining such a repo decreases
rapidly wi
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 Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:46:16AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:34, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > Bah. The Board can easily change the scope if there are better ways to
> > organize the software that we [the ASF] produce.
> >
> > Existing charters shouldn't get in the way of
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
> > It reminds me of a dutch expression for which I do not know the US
> > equivalent - such as the trust of the host is in his guests - for so
> > much can he trust his guests.
Actually just found "Ill doers are ill deemers" or better perhaps "Evil
dooers are evil dreaders". Not sure if it is ex
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> If we compete head-on with Ant why is that a concern?
No and yes - in that order. Short term, propably not; long term - seems a
waste of resources; espcially if you are not competing exactly head to
head but slightly diverse into different areas. Which the
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 12:19, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> > So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's
> > themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened
> > to project self direction/determination?
>
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Because this is not what's happening. Sam is trying to force a
> collalition because of some sense of "Rightness". We would like to be
> left alone and if a natural level of cooperation emerges in time so be
> it. But it shouldn't be dictated from the start
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's
> themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened
> to project self direction/determination?
I am not sure where you've got that impression from; and I hope it i
Costin Manolache wrote:
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 ) ?
based on current pract
I must stay that I find this entire exchange bewildering.
I have provided infrastrure support for Maven and an occasional patch
here and there. When asked about either Maven becoming a top level
project or leaving the ASF entirely, I provided what I thought were
helpful answers.
I welcomed Jas
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, I didn't ask about Gump, Centipede or Ruper. I asked about Ant and
> Maven. Start there. And as far as I'm concerned, if Build Project X
sucks
> (a logical antecedent for the sake of discussion), then an Ant/Maven PMC
> could resolve that by co
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 11:02, Noel J. Bergman 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 a
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 11:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I am the one who raised the issue about Ant and Maven. I have made the
> observation before. Dion said that it was the Ant PMC that was in the way.
> Greg Stein replied that the Ant charter could be changed if that was the
> only i
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:55, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> I wouldn't phrase it quite that way, but as long as the question is on the
> table: why aren't Ant and Maven two related projects under a single PMC?
Well, because when Ant formed they had no desire to be grouped with
Maven which is perfect
Jason,
I am the one who raised the issue about Ant and Maven. I have made the
observation before. Dion said that it was the Ant PMC that was in the way.
Greg Stein replied that the Ant charter could be changed if that was the
only issue. You jumped down Greg's throat about the Board taking away
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Jason,
>
> [I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related
> projects under a single PMC]
> >>>Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as
> >>>it's scope.
> >>Bah. The Board can easily c
Conor,
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Dion was refering to the
repository; rather he was commenting in response to my aside regarding Ant
and Maven:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:42PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Noel Bergman writes:
> > I like the idea of a central repository.
Jason,
[I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related
projects under a single PMC]
>>>Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as
>>>it's scope.
>>Bah. The Board can easily change the scope if there are better ways to
>>organize the softwar
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:43, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon
> resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to
> something like those of Ant or Cocoon: "The Maven Project will deal with
> the Maven system". But
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
