[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-23?page=comments#action_12420223
]
David Blevins commented on INCUBATOR-23:
thanks -- we'll have to get someone with sufficient privileges to close it.
OpenEJB status page
---
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-24?page=comments#action_12420224
]
David Blevins commented on INCUBATOR-24:
thanks -- we'll have to get someone with sufficient privileges to close it.
Setup OpenEJB mailing lists
Hi,
If anyone who uses Maven is interested I can whip off a plugin to
create a DOAP file from a POM so that they don't have to maintain
both files. For any elements missing in the POM that might be
required (don't know, haven't looked) the information can be placed
in standard properties
Hi,
On 7/11/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone who uses Maven is interested I can whip off a plugin to
create a DOAP file from a POM so that they don't have to maintain
both files.
That would be nice!
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7/11/06, Jukka Zitting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 7/11/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone who uses Maven is interested I can whip off a plugin to
create a DOAP file from a POM so that they don't have to maintain
both files.
That would be nice!
+1
- robert
On 7/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
the vote to close, so please vote by 11:59PST on Thursday July 13th.
(this duration seems just a little
On 7/5/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what i came to pull together the material for the proposal template, i
found that it didn't really fit into the annotation template format
originally conceived. so, here is a first draft of a guide for proposals
containing a template.
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 12:50 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I'd prefer a bit more time .. like the time for graduation etc. - these
are BIG decisions and unlike code decisions hard to revert. As such I
think we should not rush things.
+1
(And I'll note now that I'm interested in participating, although can't
commit the time to be a mentor right now.)
Ted Leung wrote:
It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like to
call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator.
In keeping with Apache
David N. Welton wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
... an idea and
community ...
i was wondering whether we might widen the general incubator list to
include
ideas for new projects provided that they are prefixed by [idea] in the
subject so that anyone who's not interested can ignore.
This thread may be dead/resolved, in which case just ignore me.
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On 6/23/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The use of e-mail as the primary means for communication is part of ASF
policy and philosophy, and we can certainly learn lessons from
projects that
have
+1
(and what he said applies to me too)
Leo
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:41:20AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
+1
(And I'll note now that I'm interested in participating, although can't
commit the time to be a mentor right now.)
Ted Leung wrote:
It seems like the discussion on
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like
to call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator.
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
the vote to close, so please vote by 11:59PST on
It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like
to call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator.
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
the vote to close, so please vote by 11:59PST on Thursday July 13th.
The current proposal
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It seems like the discussion on Heraldry has died down, so I'd like
to call for a VOTE on accepting Heraldry into the incubator.
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
robert burrell donkin wrote:
is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I wouldn't do it over a week, especially a long weekend. And if very few
PMC members have voted, I might post a reminder to vote rather than close a
vote with a minimum of voters.
--- Noel
+1
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cool!
On 7/11/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
If anyone who uses Maven is interested I can whip off a plugin to
create a DOAP file from a POM so that they don't have to maintain
both files. For any elements missing in the POM that might be
required (don't know, haven't looked)
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 12:50 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I'd prefer a bit more time .. like the time for graduation etc. - these
are BIG decisions and unlike code decisions hard to revert. As such
On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:50:44PM +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 7/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours
On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
In this case, we had several weeks of discussion on Heraldry,
including some F2F
conversations at ApacheCon EU, so 72 hours doesn't seem like a big
deal to me.
If people want to extend the voting period, I've no problem with
that. I guess the
Ted Leung wrote:
In this case, we had several weeks of discussion on Heraldry,
including some F2F conversations at ApacheCon EU, so 72 hours
doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Nor me.
I guess the bigger question is whether we ought to change the
72 hour guideline for the foundation as a
On 7/11/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This thread may be dead/resolved, in which case just ignore me.
It was only mostly-dead...but you've raised some good points that I
agree with.
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On 6/23/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The use of e-mail
Any off-list communication is a potential problem, not just IRC.
sure. but IRC is much more a problem than IM.
IM *mostly* is peer-peer chat. IRC a *group* is involved.
btw. 404 for:
http://incubator.apache.org/howtoparticipate.html
-jean
On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I guess the bigger question is whether we ought to change the
72 hour guideline for the foundation as a whole, or make
incuabator votes a clearly noted exception.
We should use our judgment to ensure a collaborative environment
without
Ted Leung wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We should use our judgment to ensure a collaborative environment
without undue overhead. But it would be unfair, for example, to
deliberately hold a vote when someone whom you know is opposed
is going to be off-line.
I was just asking the
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Any off-list communication is a potential problem, not just IRC.
sure. but IRC is much more a problem than IM.
IM *mostly* is peer-peer chat. IRC a *group* is involved.
Given this paragraph in the committers guide [1]:
Everything -- but everything-- inside the
Jean-
Given this paragraph in the committers guide [1]:
Everything -- but everything-- inside the Apache world occurs or is reflected
in email. As some people say, 'If it isn't in my email, it didn't happen.'
Would adding this sentence to the end help?
Decisions only get made on Apache
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Jean-
Given this paragraph in the committers guide [1]:
Everything -- but everything-- inside the Apache world occurs or is
reflected in email. As some people say, 'If it isn't in my email, it
didn't happen.'
Would adding this sentence to the end help?
On 7/11/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
below) and other recent threads, here's what I would propose also be
doc'd:
IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g.
QA between available committers and interested users/contributors),
although such sessions
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g.
QA between available committers and interested users/contributors),
although such sessions should be archived and made available to those
not able to attend. However, using
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g.
QA between available committers and interested users/contributors),
although such sessions should be archived and made available to those
not able to attend. However, using IRC
On 7/11/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
IRC can be used by a podling to bring new people up to speed (e.g.
QA between available committers and interested users/contributors),
although such sessions should be archived and made
On 7/11/06, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Board meetings are another case entirely, but having never listened in
on one, I don't know how practical they'd be to hold via other means.
I suspect it would be difficult though.
Any one can dial in to the Board meetings. It's honestly not
34 matches
Mail list logo
