On 3/16/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
using the normal Apache distribution network to make them available,
and (for Maven users) not even making it visible that you're using a
non-official release because they didn't have to configure any
repository, you blur the distinct
On 3/16/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
+1 (Non-binding)
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
-1 (Non-binding)
--
Emacs 22 will support MacOS and CygWin. It
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what's the incentive for a project [to] push for diversity/graduation?
That's an appropriate and important question.
They can release without the Incubator PMC looking over their
shoulder? Less bureaucracy is probably appreciated. -- j
Dims,
Let's focus this on the general part of your question:
> what's the incentive for a project [to] push for diversity/graduation?
That's an appropriate and important question.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [E
On 3/15/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[X] +1
[ ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
[X] Don't care.
FTR, your vote syntax sucks: it should be "Ye
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > IMO, calling a vote in the middle of a very active discussion leads to
one
> > of two things:
> > - a VOTE thread hijacked for discussion
> > - a subtle push to terminate discussion and count votes
> > FWIW, I don't particularly feel the same ab
On Mar 15, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Frank Question, Would your vote be the same if you thought Tuscany
would graduate very soon?
Yes, my vote has nothing to do with Tuscany. I'm actually pretty
ambivalent about the result and was voting more for consistency
across TLPs tha
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set up their
> pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided mechanism), end
> users will have to add incubator repos explicitly/consciously and
> won't get podling jars pulled in w/o their knowledge.
What's
Martin Cooper wrote:
> > Didn't we retire this Kabuki?
> It was withdrawn by the original proposers.
Yes, I recall the situtation and discussion. Either way, we should no
longer be listing it as active.
--- Noel
-
To
(non-binding)
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[ ] +1
[X] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[X] +1
[ ] -1
I agree with Craig.
asankha - I am from Apache Synapse which graduated out from the
incubator early this year
---
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way* *way* *way* smarter
> > > about repositories.
> > Including delivering the long awaited security checks for downloa
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Didn't we retire this Kabuki?
It was withdrawn by the original proposers.
--
Martin Cooper
It is still listed as active.
I'll check the archives if no one beats me to it. Else we should formally
retired it. And we should review, a
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way* *way* *way* smarter
> > > about repositories.
> > Including delivering the long awaited security checks for downloaded
> > artifacts.
> Instead of casting stones, why not f
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > users should have to make an explicit decision to make use of
> > Incubator projects. As many users as want to make that
> > decision are welcome to do so, but yes, we do not want widespread,
> > unintentional, adoption by users who may be stuck (an
Didn't we retire this Kabuki? It is still listed as active.
I'll check the archives if no one beats me to it. Else we should formally
retired it. And we should review, again, the roster
(http://incubator.apache.org/projects/) to see if anything else should be
moved to dormant status.
-
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman asked:
> > Is there a reason for calling a vote while there is still active
discussion?
> It was asked for and I announced I would do it
Yes, but ...
IMO, calling a vote in the middle of a very active
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce,
You may want to check with jvz. He is aware of the requirements. There
are several email threads on various lists. Though am note sure if
there is a specific JIRA was created.
Thanks, I'll have to ask him about it, because I'd real
Bruce,
You may want to check with jvz. He is aware of the requirements. There
are several email threads on various lists. Though am note sure if
there is a specific JIRA was created.
thanks,
dims
On 3/16/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set up their
pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided mechanism), end
users will have to add incubator repos explicitly/consciously and
won't get podling jars pulled in w/o their knowledge.
-- dims
On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way* *way* *way* smarter
> about repositories.
Including delivering the long awaited security checks for downloaded
artifacts.
Instead of casting stones, why not file is
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought that I had later clarified that, but let's give it another go.
First off, see the very first sentence. Second, the last sentence is the
goal: users should have to make an explicit decision to make use of
Incubator projects. As ma
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> #1) End user using an Incubator podling m2 artifact directly: End
> users need to specify our repo in their pom.xml explicity. this is
> a conscious decision.
> #2) End user using a regular Apache project that depends on incubator
> podling artifact
Actually, both cases
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> the message that completely, utterly threw me was Noel's message stating:
> 'As I said, it is about balance. The community that we most care about
> during Incubation is the developer community, not the end-user community.
I
> could go so far as to say that a bit of inconve
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way* *way* *way* smarter
> about repositories.
Including delivering the long awaited security checks for downloaded
artifacts.
--- Noel
-
To unsubsc
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman asked:
> > Is there a reason for calling a vote while there is still active
discussion?
> It was asked for and I announced I would do it
Yes, but ...
IMO, calling a vote in the middle of a very active discussion leads to one
of two things:
- a VOTE thread
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Why must it be so difficult for users of the incubating projects?
Because people make the assumption that they can count on ASF projects to
deliver a level of community, quality, and logenvity. They *count* on us,
and we want to protect them *and* our brand/reputation.
Whe
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> as more incubator projects start using maven and deploying artifacts,
> this number should rise.
Well, we could just refer them to http://ant.apache.org, rather than
suggesting that Maven cures what (or anything ;-)) that ails them. Tastes
great, less filling, and all that.
Noel,
There are 2 ways here
#1) End user using an Incubator podling m2 artifact directly: End
users need to specify our repo in their pom.xml explicity. this is a
conscious decision.
#2) End user using a regular Apache project that depends on incubator
podling artifact: End users won't have to
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > We've discussed this many times before, and so far the consensus has
been
> > to not conflate the Incubator artifacts with regular ASF artifacts. I
am
> > still -1 to conflating ASF artifacts with incubator artifacts, but
that's
> > just my view.
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > As I understand it, so please correct me if I am wrong, if I download
> > a program that builds using Maven, and it has dependencies in its
> > pom.xml on Incubator artifiacts, then if Incubator artifacts are
> > conflated with ASF artifacts, then wh
It was asked for and I announced I would do it (and then did it 6
hours later than I said I would as I found more interesting things to
do during the day).
Hen
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a reason for calling a vote while there is still active discussion?
Craig McClanahan wrote:
> It was my understanding that we (ASF) did *not* want to extend
> such protections to the artifacts produced by podlings, because
> they were *not* in fact part of the ASF yet.
You have it backwards. It isn't a matter of protecting (or not) the
podlings. It is a matter
Is there a reason for calling a vote while there is still active discussion?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:49 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 3/13/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the OSOA
specif
Jeremy,
[I pulled this out from the vote thread, so that the vote thread is
not cluttered]
Frank Question, Would your vote be the same if you thought Tuscany
would graduate very soon? In other words, what's the incentive for a
project (full of committers from one employer) to push for
diversity/
On 3/15/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Podlings cannot do Releases because they are not Projects established
by the Board. However, the artifacts produced by them are voted on
and approved by the Incubator PMC and hence are official Releases by
the Incubator Project and hence by th
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus
mirrors).
[X] +1
[ ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[X] -1
On Mar 15, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
If we accept this argument, then we naturally need a place where the
incubating "rel
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[ ] +1
[X] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[X] +1
[ ] -1
Totally agree with Craig's reasoning.
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL P
On 3/15/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[ ] +1
[X] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[X] +1
[ ] -1
Vote to last a week. Unless people are bored of replying, or i
On Thursday 15 March 2007 21:23, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Two parts to the vote:
>
> ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus
> mirrors).
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] -1
+1
> TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] -1
-1
IMO there isn't a good reason to ke
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 20:07, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
There appears to be a bug in the gpg plugin for mvn. When I did this
release I used gpg:sign as a goal on the command line and that
consistently generates invalid keys for all except the last a
(non-binding)
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[X] +1
[ ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[X] -1
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
On 3/15/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[ ] +1
+1.
[ ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
-1.
Don't you love the egalitarian way in which thin
Two parts to the vote:
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[ ] -1
Vote to last a week. Unless people are bored of replying, or it's a
flamefest, or we're too busy pursuing eternal en
On Thursday 15 March 2007 20:07, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> There appears to be a bug in the gpg plugin for mvn. When I did this
> release I used gpg:sign as a goal on the command line and that
> consistently generates invalid keys for all except the last artifact
> (in this case the JavaDoc) even in t
On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:49 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 3/13/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the OSOA
specification V1.0:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mb
On Mar 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On 3/15/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
the latest advice on best practice from cliff is that a separate
DISCLAIMER.txt is preferred to including the incubator disclaimer in
the NOTICE.txt. the reason is that the NOTICE.tx
On 3/15/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/13/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
> incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the OSOA
> specification V1.0:
> http://mail-archives.apache.o
On 3/13/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the OSOA
specification V1.0:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200703.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The sourc
> Where does this leave a project that enters to the Incubator with a
> user community already? Further, where does this leave a project that
> has been in the Incubator long enough to have developed a user
> community?
I know the answer to the second question is graduation - but what
about the f
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> Please see below:
>
> Draft Policy(?):
> http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
>
> Thread:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11566972785&r=1&w=2
>
> First email:
>
On 3/14/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2007, at 3:33 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 3/14/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:46 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> >> the s
Bruce,
We are not making it impossible for them to use...just making it a bit
conscious decision and flick a few switches.
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce,
Please see below:
Draft Policy(?):
http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
Thread:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11566972785&r=1&w=2
First email:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115669716709268&w=2
As long as you mark it as UNTESTED or BETA per the JAX-WS part - IOW,
make no claim about compatibility, you're fine.
geir
On Mar 13, 2007, at 4:14 AM, Bozhong Lin wrote:
Hi,
Apache CXF team is planning for its 2.0 final release. In benefit
of CXF users, we would like to cut 2.0 release s
Sorry Dan, I apologize. Bruce, thanks for setting me straight.
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> thanks for being the amazing fount of wisdom and berating our "silly
> idea." Please see below.
>
> On 3/
FWIW, on the incubating projects I've helped with AFAIR there's never been
anyone who complained the separate incubator repository was confusing or
caused any problems. Also, most of the time we build in offline mode so the
performance of the separate repository isn't really an issue.
There is on
On 3/15/07, Marnie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thus, Rupert Smith should now be created as a committer on the Qpid project.
Cliff - is this something you can action from a practical perspective please
? If I can do it please let me know.
Just forwarded an old email I sent to qpid-dev
Bruce,
Please see below:
Draft Policy(?):
http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
Thread:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11566972785&r=1&w=2
First email:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115669716709268&w=2
Please read this email:
http://marc.info/?l=incubator-ge
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan,
thanks for being the amazing fount of wisdom and berating our "silly
idea." Please see below.
On 3/15/07, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "It's even knowing th
Dan,
thanks for being the amazing fount of wisdom and berating our "silly
idea." Please see below.
On 3/15/07, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
>
> [DIMS] This is by design
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
[DIMS] This is by design.
As everyone else is saying, its a silly design. The version/artifactId
clearly as "incubator" in it. People know they're using an incubating
project.
" it
Sounds like the right questions Hen.
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll go ahead and kick off a new thread for this in a couple of hours.
It seems to me we have two questions, though in my view they relate to
the same topic.
Topic: Should we treat incubator
I guess we should have a VOTE and document the policy then :)
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
>
> [DIMS] This is by design.
It's by design to add additio
I'll go ahead and kick off a new thread for this in a couple of hours.
It seems to me we have two questions, though in my view they relate to
the same topic.
Topic: Should we treat incubator releases differently to normal releases.
Question: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and
Thanks. That's what I thought.
Cheers,
On 15/03/07, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only third-party notices that should be inserted in the NOTICE
file are ones that are explicitly required by a necessary license.
From what you've described below, it doesn't sound like you a lic
The only third-party notices that should be inserted in the NOTICE
file are ones that are explicitly required by a necessary license.
From what you've described below, it doesn't sound like you a license
for Libxml is necessary.
Cliff
On 3/15/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We ar
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
[DIMS] This is by design.
It's by design to add additional repos, it's by undocumented policy
that the Incubator has a separate repo.
" it's pinging that repo every time you build l
We are having a discussion on tuscany-dev to decide if we need to add our
use of Libxml in the NOTICE file for the release we are preparing. We
compile against the headers but no Libxml artifacts are included in anything
we distribute. We document that libxml is a pre-req.
The question is do we n
On 3/15/07, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But by making it difficult, you are making it much more likely that the
> project will get killed/nuked. You're basically making it difficult
> for the project to grow their community j
"It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
[DIMS] This is by design.
" it's pinging that repo every time you build looking for every other
artifact"
[DIMS] Please file a maven2 bug report for this.
"it's not having any alternative when the people.apache.org is
inaccessible (and thi
On Thursday 15 March 2007 12:26, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Also, are you advocating that all incubator snapshots go to the
> central repo??? you will have #2 and #3 anyways even if we publish the
> released artifacts to central repo.
God no. SNAPSHOTs either stay at apache (but work with infrastr
Hi,
On 3/15/07, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wait a sec there. Let's not pretend that Maven couldn't be *way*
*way* *way* smarter about repositories. This situation is partly
Maven's own doing and their refusal to deal with a collection of
(mirrored) repositories intelligently.
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5 extra minutes to add an additional entry in a pom.xml is not going
to kill anyone. Can you please point me to email queries from end
users on the podling mailing lists where they say that this was a
pain? Give me a break!
But it's not ju
Amen! Dan, time to use the new maven karma :)
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But by making it difficult, you are making it much more likely that the
> project will get killed/nuked. You're basically making
Bruce,
can you show me a single podling web site where they provide guidance
on how exactly to use the podling artifacts? and hence "overcome the
ill-documentation" caused by the incubator process. Anyone who has
even barely touched m2 knows how to add a new repo to his pom.xml so
this is a non-i
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But by making it difficult, you are making it much more likely that the
project will get killed/nuked. You're basically making it difficult
for the project to grow their community just to make it easier to kill
the community later if it fails.
5 extra minutes to add an additional entry in a pom.xml is not going
to kill anyone. Can you please point me to email queries from end
users on the podling mailing lists where they say that this was a
pain? Give me a break!
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But by maki
But by making it difficult, you are making it much more likely that the
project will get killed/nuked. You're basically making it difficult
for the project to grow their community just to make it easier to kill
the community later if it fails.
I'd prefer to give the projects the benefit o
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because projects get killed/nuked as they don't have enough legs to
stand on literally. You are assuming that every project makes it. It
doesn't. We have to let people know that they are making a conscious
choice by making it difficult.
I'
Woo-hoo! Congratulations!
I've been watching the progress on uima-dev for the past few months, and I have
to say that this is one of the most capable, well-organized groups of
developers I've ever seen. You guys really deserve to take bow.
You've accomplished a lot in a short amount of time.
All,
This vote closed on Tuesday night and the result is as follows:
Votes Cast:
9+
0-
Thus, Rupert Smith should now be created as a committer on the Qpid project.
Cliff - is this something you can action from a practical perspective please
? If I can do it please let me know.
Thanks & Regar
Jukka,
I asked exactly the same question:
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg09832.html
And the answer:
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg09864.html
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[E
n 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#1) This is by design. We don't want to make it easy.
This is what I really don't understand. Why must it be so difficult
for users of the incubating projects?
Daniel's summation of the situation is very accurate. All the separate
reposito
Because projects get killed/nuked as they don't have enough legs to
stand on literally. You are assuming that every project makes it. It
doesn't. We have to let people know that they are making a conscious
choice by making it difficult.
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Hi,
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5) Having them separate from central really only annoys those who
actually want to use the official apache versions. For my customers, I
could easily create a com.dankulp:orb:1.0 pom that just depends on yoko
from the incubator repository.
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#4) is a problem. We can address it say by asking infra to rsync it to
say the eu boxes
No. If it needs to get mirrored, then it goes out via the standard
systems: i.e. via www.apache.org. But, people.a.o is purposely not
mirrored - main
On Mar 14, 2007, at 2:22 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote:
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This month's ASF Board reports should be written up on the wiki at
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2007
River and Woden are not nearly detailed enough. We need status,
issues
required for g
All it tells me is that m2 is broken and there needs to be a way to
say don't look in this repo for stuff available elsewhere. looks like
a JIRA entry to me :)
-- dims
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 12:00, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> 3) Load on p.a.o. Be
Also, are you advocating that all incubator snapshots go to the
central repo??? you will have #2 and #3 anyways even if we publish the
released artifacts to central repo.
One more thing, If you are end user downloading a released incubator
artifact, how many times does maven down load it into the
On Thursday 15 March 2007 12:00, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> 3) Load on p.a.o. Because of (2), it can be a lot of traffic on
> p.a.o. Most will result in 404 errors, but still, that's a lot of
> uneeded connections.
Just to quantify this. Yesterday, there were 70957 GET requests from
the m2-incubati
#1) This is by design. We don't want to make it easy.
#2 and #3) i don't really have anything to day.
#4) is a problem. We can address it say by asking infra to rsync it to
say the eu boxes
#5) I really hope you don't do this :)
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On
On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:33, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Could you please summarize the "difficulties"/"inconvenience" in the
> current status quo?
There are a few main issues:
1) Finding stuff - when a user is searching for the groupId/artifactId
of something, they generally just go look in
On Thursday 15 March 2007 04:26, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> We've discussed this many times before, and so far the consensus has been
> to not conflate the Incubator artifacts with regular ASF artifacts. I am
> still -1 to conflating ASF artifacts with incubator artifacts, but that's
> just my view.
Daniel,
Could you please summarize the "difficulties"/"inconvenience" in the
current status quo?
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:12, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > > Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > > My personal op
On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:12, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > > Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > > My personal opinion is that an "incubator" in the groupId or
> > > > artifactId would be more than sufficient to mark the Incubator
> > > > status
> >
> > The version attribute is
Hi,
On 3/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I understand it, so please correct me if I am wrong, if I download a
program that builds using Maven, and it has dependencies in its pom.xml on
Incubator artifiacts, then if Incubator artifacts are conflated with ASF
artifacts, then w
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > My personal opinion is that an "incubator" in the groupId or
> > > artifactId would be more than sufficient to mark the Incubator status
> The version attribute is more appropriate IMO, and what was agreed
> upon in an earlier thread on this
On 3/15/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The version attribute is more appropriate IMO, and what was agreed
upon in an earlier thread on this list. [1]
+1, it eases the migration when the project graduates.
- Xavier
Regards,
Martijn
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_
The version attribute is more appropriate IMO, and what was agreed
upon in an earlier thread on this list. [1]
Regards,
Martijn
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200611.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
On 3/15/07, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 3/14/07,
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
