On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:
> Hudson build machine accounts are created upon request for members of
> (P)PMCs.
>
> Does the Cassandra project have a PPMC? I don't see one in the
> asf-authorization file, and have a request from Eric for an account [1].
>
>
Podlings PPMCs
Heya OpenCMIS folks,
Since it looks like you aren't currently supported by a champion or
mentor [1], I thought I'd fill in a small part and inject some warm
fuzzies...
*Thanks* for open sourcing your project and *thanks* for considering
doing it at apache. Its always a lot of effort to go th
On 12/11/09 1:14 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
I would like to present an incubator proposal for a new Validation
podling, which would be a JSR-303 Bean Validation follow-on to the
existing Apache Commons Validation 1.x project, but based on a new
incoming codebase with a software grant from Agimatec G
Great. Here's the tally:
+1s:
Kevan Miller
Joe Schaefer
ant elder
Upayavira
-1s: none
So, this release is good to go. I'll post it to the download page,
update website, etc, this weekend.
Thanks, everyone
-Todd
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:1
Dear all,
this incubator pmc vote has passed with 3x +1 from:
antelder, gmcdonald and carnold
Thanks for voting and your help!
I will upload the release somewhen early next week.
Best regards,
Christian
-- Forwarded message --
From: Curt Arnold
Date: Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:06 P
Florian Müller wrote:
Well, here is a citation from http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html (section
"The Foundation Incubator"):
"It must be noted that the incubator (just like the board) does not perform
filtering on the basis of technical issues. This is because the foundation re
+1
Congratulations!
Craig
On Dec 7, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
Hi;
After over one years in the incubator with providing
three releases
OpenWebBeans community with the support of our mentors feel
that we are
ready to propose to the Incubator PMC
I've said my peace on this issue. If the committer(s) need mentors to help
them learn the ropes, try working with the new d...@community.apache.org list
to set up a formal arrangement.
OTOH I won't stand in the way if commons insists on incubating this effort.
- Original Message
> Fro
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Florian Müller wrote:
> But you are actually comparing two different levels of APIs. The
> opencmis-provider-api handles simple immutable data objects while
> chemistry-api follows an object-oriented approach. As far as I know
> Chemistry has nothing comparabl
Well, here is a citation from
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html (section "The Foundation
Incubator"):
"It must be noted that the incubator (just like the board) does not perform
filtering on the basis of technical issues. This is because the foundation
respects and suggests va
On Dec 11, 2009, at 7:10 PM, Florian Müller wrote:
Chemistry uses Abdera to communicate with the server while OpenCMIS
is based on JAX-B and some CMIS specific XML coding.
I've been personally asking myself recently wether it would be
feasible to drop Abdera in favor of JAXB in Chemistry,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Florian Müller wrote:
> But you are actually comparing two different levels of APIs. The
> opencmis-provider-api handles simple immutable data objects while
> chemistry-api follows an object-oriented approach. As far as I know Chemistry
> has nothing comparable
Hi Jukka,
In the end the APIs should be somewhat similar since they are implementing the
same spec.
But you are actually comparing two different levels of APIs. The
opencmis-provider-api handles simple immutable data objects while chemistry-api
follows an object-oriented approach. As far as I
Good points, which we discussed some on the d...@commns list before
asking the Commons PMC to sponsor this as an Incubator project.
My concerns, were around brining in a new codebase that previously had
one maintainer, but not offering them committership from the beginning,
which seemed to fol
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> ...More seriously, let's not attack each other's conception of open source,
> and
> focus on the question at hand
+1
>
> ...Everyone, member of the open source community or not, is free to start a
> new
> implementation of an exis
On Dec 11, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Jens Hübel wrote:
Hi Chemistry,
I understand the concerns you might have and the confusion we have
caused. But please do not forget that Open in Open Source has a
meaning. So I am not sure that all the comments I read here are in
accordance with the idea of i
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> I compared opencmis-provider-api to chemistry-api. While there are
> differences in design (granularity of interfaces, type safety, etc.),
> the fundamental architecture is the same for both projects. This is as
> expected as they both map th
Hi Chemistry,
I understand the concerns you might have and the confusion we have caused. But
please do not forget that Open in Open Source has a meaning. So I am not sure
that all the comments I read here are in accordance with the idea of it. So
before you just say "No" please think about
- I
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Florian Müller wrote:
> The only way to overcome this is to merge the OpenCMIS code into the
> Chemistry code base. But the technical approaches of the projects are so
> different that this might not work - at least not in the short term.
I compared opencmis-
On Dec 11, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Florian Müller wrote:
Hi Stefane,
I'm not sure I get your point. If OpenCMIS would become a top level
subproject within Chemistry (which is what Florent suggested) then
those two topics would still remain. It would be even worse:
Chemistry would then have two
Same for me (if I understand your opinion correctly): we shouldn't
have OpenCMIS competing with a subproject of Chemistry, because it
will have a negative impact both internally (on project developers)
and externally (on project customers):
1. Internally: duplication of effort, instead of f
On Dec 10, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> My earlier recommendation to Paul and Florian, and my recommendation
> today, is that, if incubating is deemed the better choice, OpenCMIS
> become a top level directory under the Chemistry codebase. The earlier
> the two codebases are broug
Hi Stefane,
I'm not sure I get your point. If OpenCMIS would become a top level subproject
within Chemistry (which is what Florent suggested) then those two topics would
still remain. It would be even worse: Chemistry would then have two client APIs
which would be really confusing.
The only wa
On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Hi Kevan,
>
> Responses below:
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> What's the license for the file: doc/thrift.tex?
>>
>
> This was contributed by Facebook, and thus falls under the Facebook
> CLA as Apache 2.0 lic
Hudson build machine accounts are created upon request for members of
(P)PMCs.
Does the Cassandra project have a PPMC? I don't see one in the
asf-authorization file, and have a request from Eric for an account [1].
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2362
Thanks,
Tim
-
- Original Message
> From: Niall Pemberton
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 6:29:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > - Original Message
>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Hi Kevan,
>
> Responses below:
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> What's the license for the file: doc/thrift.tex?
>>
>
> This was contributed by Facebook, and thus falls under the Facebook
> CLA as Apache 2.0 licen
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: ant elder
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM
- Original Message
> From: ant elder
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
>>
>> Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
>> to graduate to Apache Commons and re
+1
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
> Hi;
>
> After over one years in the incubator with providing three
> releases
> OpenWebBeans community with the support of our mentors feel that we
> are
> ready to propose to the Incubator PMC to graduate
+1
Niall
2009/12/11 Gurkan Erdogdu :
> Hi;
>
> This is a reminder email that 72 hours have already passed.
>
> What other IPMC members think about graduation? So far we have three
> binding +1 votes from
>
> Kevan Miller,
> Matthias Wessendorf,
> Bertrand Delacretaz
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
Hi;
This is a reminder email that 72 hours have already passed.
What other IPMC members think about graduation? So far we have three
binding +1 votes from
Kevan Miller,
Matthias Wessendorf,
Bertrand Delacretaz
Thanks;
--Gurkan
2009/12/7 Gurkan Erdogdu
> Hi;
>
> After over one years in
Dear Clerezza Developers,
This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator
PMC.
It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly
board report.
The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 16 December 2009, 2 pm Pacific. The
report
for your
Dear HISE Developers,
This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator
PMC.
It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly
board report.
The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 16 December 2009, 2 pm Pacific. The
report
for your podl
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
> A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
>
> Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
> to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
> component as a new 2.0 codeb
hi all,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> None of the above issues is a blocker, but the sum of the parts
> doesn't give me exactly a warm, fuzzy feeling. I would appreciate the
> proponents having a discussion with Chemistry first. If OpenCMIS,
> however, prefers to sk
It's related. Commons are sponsoring this incubation.
Hen
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what about the effort from the Jakarta/Commons Validator community?
> Aren't they doing that as well ? (or was it only stated to do so)?
>
> -Matthias
>
> On Fri, Dec
38 matches
Mail list logo
