All:
The Pivot community voted on and has approved a proposal to release Apache
Pivot 1.3 Release Candidate 2. We would now like to request the permission
of the Incubator PMC to publish the artifacts on the Pivot download page.
The artifacts, RAT reports, KEYS file, and release notes can be foun
The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
Cassandra 0.4.0-rc1. We would now like to request the approval of the
Incubator PMC for this release.
Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
structured key-value store.
Podling vote thread:
http:/
A goal of Aries is to seed a new community focused on the development
of an Enterprise Java OSGi application programming model, and runtime
that is agnostic of server runtime or OSGi framework implementation.
This independence from underlying technology will make Aries' appeal
as broad as possible
On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:01 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jeremy Hughes
wrote:
We appreciate any feedback and comments on the proposal.
* Any chance of one or two of the other ASF members involved also
stepping up as a mentor?
That would be very good. I left my name of
On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.> wrote:
If Felix is looking at this as an opportunity, to attract more OSGi
activity at the foundation, expand its base of contributors (at least
to common underlying components) and demons
I think it's important that Aries have its own identity independent
from a particular framework implementation (e.g. Felix or Equinox) or
Kernel (e.g. Karaf, Geronimo, etc.). Independence (both technical and
perception) will help make it equally consumable in each and increase
the likelihood of it
Kevan,
Was a contact with Felix made prior to dropping the proposal here? I got the
impression that wasn't the case, which I find surprising... If I am wrong,
what was the meat of such?
I'm also less happy with the rhetoric here repeated over and over, seemingly
uninterested in discussion of reac
There was no attempt to contact the Felix PMC in general that I am aware
and I certainly didn't know about it in advance.
And there seems to be a continued attempt to construe my original
criticisms as "all of Aries should go into Felix".
I, personally, do not believe that all of Aries should
Richard,
By having the "why should Felix..."-attitude, you solidify a stalemate
stance. It creates a "why should Aries..."-attitude on the other side, for
instance pointing out "there are many examples of multiple spec
implementations at ASF".
I'm not suggesting that Felix should bend over backwa
The discussion on this part of the proposal reflects the origins of it -
people with an interest in AppServers and integration runtimes that are
looking to the new EEG specs to provide additional capability in their
world so that existing applications can begin to take advantage of OSGi
with mi
On 9/3/09 14:37, Ian Robinson wrote:
The discussion on this part of the proposal reflects the origins of it
- people with an interest in AppServers and integration runtimes that
are looking to the new EEG specs to provide additional capability in
their world so that existing applications can be
On 03/09/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> All:
>
> The Pivot community voted on and has approved a proposal to release Apache
> Pivot 1.3 Release Candidate 2. We would now like to request the permission
> of the Incubator PMC to publish the artifacts on the Pivot download page.
>
> The artifacts, R
On 02/09/2009, Luciano Resende wrote:
> A new RC is now available, please see details below :
>
> ---
> Please review and vote on the M1-incubating release artifacts of PhotArk.
>
>
> The artifacts are available for review at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende/photark/M1-incubating-RC4/
S
> The NOTICE file contains items which should not be there, i.e. Tomcat.
>
The servlet implementation could come from a number of places. We
originally didn't mention it in the NOTICE file, but it got caught as
something that needed to be there in our 1.1 release to remove any ambiguity
as to whi
On 04/09/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> > The NOTICE file contains items which should not be there, i.e. Tomcat.
> >
>
>
> The servlet implementation could come from a number of places. We
> originally didn't mention it in the NOTICE file, but it got caught as
> something that needed to be there
A new RC is now available which should fix the items mentioned, please
see details below :
---
The artifacts are available for review at:
http://people.apache.org/~lresende/photark/M1-incubating-RC4a/
This includes the signed binary and source distributions, the RAT report,
and the Maven staging
> > > The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk
> > > icons; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for
> > > the full text.
> >
> > Good to know - I'll update it on the trunk. Given that we got it from
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
On 04/09/2009, Todd Volkert wrote:
> > > > The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk
> > > > icons; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for
> > > > the full text.
> > >
> > > Good to know - I'll update it on the trunk. Given that we got it fro
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Kevan,
Was a contact with Felix made prior to dropping the proposal here? I
got the
impression that wasn't the case, which I find surprising... If I am
wrong,
what was the meat of such?
No. There were some internal sensitivities to the t
Hello Kevan,
On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:48 , Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Was a contact with Felix made prior to dropping the proposal here?
I got the
impression that wasn't the case, which I find surprising... If I am
wrong,
what was the meat of such?
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Perhaps could have been handled differently. However, in the end, I much
> prefer holding a public discussion rather than over a private@ list.
Well, the leads to the sense of "exclusion" instead of "inclusion"
which we very much prefer.
> H
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
There was no attempt to contact the Felix PMC in general that I am
aware and I certainly didn't know about it in advance.
And there seems to be a continued attempt to construe my original
criticisms as "all of Aries should go into Felix".
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> So, let's assume that one or more OSGi spec implementations are a core part
> of Aries -- with specific features/customization for Aries. Personally, it
> seems reasonable that an Aries project would want these customized spec
> implementations
23 matches
Mail list logo
