Actually I'm wrong
The correct wording (I think) is:
..establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
and maintenance of open-source software for distribution at no charge
to the public, that simplifies the development, deployment and management
of distributed applications
Cesar
The Tuscany project is aiming to have the following charter:
charged with
the creation and maintenance of open-source software that
simplifies the development and deployment of service oriented
applications and provides a managed service-oriented runtime
based on
In my opinion SCA and SDO are two completely different technologies,
even if they can be used together, they address different problems and
as specifications they are developed separately.
I think there are a lot of people looking only at SDO for their
projects, and I'm sure there are others looki
El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 14:45 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann escribió:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Erik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Aye, and this is also the reason why it potentially conflicts with
> > the meritocratic model of the ASF; furthermore there are also legal
> > hurdles
El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 14:32 +0100, Erik Abele escribió:
> On 14.02.2008, at 14:14, Santiago Gala wrote:
>
> > ...
> > The typical workflow in distributed scm is that authoritative
> > repositories pull (as requested and after review) from non-official
> > ones, so typically security is easier:
Cezar
I don't think anyone has suggested this code is a fork from Tuscany,
but thank you for making this completely clear.
Is there any reason you aren't willing to do this work under the
existing scope of the Tuscany Incubator project?
Paul
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Cezar Andrei <[EMAIL
Santiago Gala wrote:
I'd say that if a project wants to have a distributed scm and makes a
reasonable case of the reasons, they would ask for it to infrastructure.
If infrastructure denies it and the project does not accept the
reasoning or how it is exposed, we have a conflict. If there is a
con
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Erik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aye, and this is also the reason why it potentially conflicts with
> the meritocratic model of the ASF; furthermore there are also legal
> hurdles to cross etc.
>
> In the end I think it's simply too early to discuss all
On 14.02.2008, at 14:14, Santiago Gala wrote:
...
The typical workflow in distributed scm is that authoritative
repositories pull (as requested and after review) from non-official
ones, so typically security is easier: no longer lots of people with
write access, but only a handful, taking change
El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 10:52 +, William A. Rowe, Jr. escribió:
> Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> >> No, there was no vote and is not vote, nor is there any choice.
> >> Subversion is one of the few things that the Board has mandated,
> >> imposed on all projects. Period. Pretty much end of disc
would SVK be an option? This would allow to re-use the already existing SVN
infrastracture.
No need for changes to the ASF infrastructure...
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 12:37 +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik escribió:
>
> > O
El jue, 14-02-2008 a las 12:37 +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik escribió:
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >> J Aaron Farr wrote:
> >>> J Aaron Farr wrote:
> > git could be an issue.
> Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
> >>> Leo alr
Janne Jalkanen wrote:
No, there was no vote and is not vote, nor is there any choice.
Subversion is one of the few things that the Board has mandated,
imposed on all projects. Period. Pretty much end of discussion.
I would assume though that if there is enough interest among the
community,
El mié, 13-02-2008 a las 18:28 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió:
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
> > J Aaron Farr wrote:
> >>> git could be an issue.
> > > Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
> > Leo already gave a decent explanation.
> > Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
> > 1) infrastructu
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
git could be an issue.
Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
Leo already gave a decent explanation.
Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
1) infrastructure support
2)
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
git could be an issue.
Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
Leo already gave a decent explanation.
Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
1) infrastructure support
2) cultural bias
Only the first one is marginally c
16 matches
Mail list logo
