On 9/5/09 13:36, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
I will try to keep this short.
The OSGi Service Platform is composed of the core and compendium specs. The
EEG specs are not in any way special and will ultimately end up as part of
the compendiu
2009/9/5 Davanum Srinivas
> One more question, Will there be a problem of folks on d...@felix not being
> able or willing to participate in a new podling? (If the folks presenting
> this proposal do wish to start off as a podling)
>
Personally speaking I'd be willing to help out where possible r
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> I will try to keep this short.
>
> The OSGi Service Platform is composed of the core and compendium specs. The
> EEG specs are not in any way special and will ultimately end up as part of
> the compendium spec. Apache Felix was incubated to
Karl,
Please don't get me wrong. Felix is choice for an excellent *destination* TLP. The Incubator PMC itself was setup to
take away the responsibility for training incoming folks from existing TLP(s). So my gut feeling is that we should allow
the incubation process to go on and decide on desti
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Karl,
>
> There are *many* TLP(s) with overlapping scope as James Strachan pointed out
> earlier in the thread.
>
>
> I don't see the need to shoe horn a new community with new code into an
> existing TLP just because of scope. For all you
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
> Where in the above "but educating incoming people via contributions
> and meritocracy to an existing project is not some shortcut" do you
> find anything that would imply that the idea is to just accept a large
> number of people into a TLP?
Not
Richard,
#2 - "Finished impls could quickly be released as non-incubator artifacts." is also something that i am not comfortable
with, at least until the new committers get off the ground, attract a user community and show that they are able to
follow the ASF way.
Ideally my hope is that d...
Karl,
There are *many* TLP(s) with overlapping scope as James Strachan pointed out
earlier in the thread.
I don't see the need to shoe horn a new community with new code into an existing TLP just because of scope. For all you
know by the time they get out of the incubator their scope may chang
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
>>> Choices are
>>>
>>> 1) Podling -> TLP
>>> 2) Podling -> Felix Sub project
>>> 3) Podling -> Felix Sub project -> TLP
>>> 4) Felix Sub proj
