I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those numbers
are too small."
Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
-g
On Jun 3, 2011 1:22 AM, "Norbert Thiebaud" wrote:
> On Thu, Jun
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07 PM, wrote:
> Michael Meeks wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:
>
>>
>> - $scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
>> + $scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03'
>>$outdir/all-lo.log
>>
>> Show 'active' contributors by affiliati
On 6/2/2011 7:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> This is purely my own thoughts, and there's no doubt room for improvement
> although I have run it past a few wise friends before posting it. But I
> suggest that without this clear demarcation of "new-project" and
> "business-as-usual-project" it wi
Hi Sebb,
These days we record exactly what is in the first line of the ICLA:
Sidney Phillip Rhodes. Both in the iclas.txt and the name of the
document.
Craig
On Jun 2, 2011, at 6:59 PM, sebb wrote:
On 3 June 2011 02:44, Phillip Rhodes
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:00 PM, sebb wrote
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/02/2011 09:07:31
PM:
>
> The "Required Resources" section of the proposal is pretty
> minimalistic listing only two mailing lists, JIRA, Subversion &
> download site. While it is not necessary IMO to detail all
> requirements prior to accepting the proposal, it would
Hi all,
The Hama team is pleased to announce the first release of Apache Hama
0.2.0-incubating under the Apache Incubator.
Hama is a distributed computing framework based on BSP (Bulk
Synchronous Parallel)[1] computing techniques for massive scientific
computations.
This first release includes:
Michael Meeks wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:
>
> -$scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
> +$scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03'
>$outdir/all-lo.log
>
>Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch
> contributed in the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM, wrote:
> "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24
> PM:
>
>> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
>> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
>> >> i
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24
PM:
> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
> >> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now tha
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 20:22, wrote:
>...
> The only concrete thing I've heard so far is the question of whether
> subversion can handle the project.
I would be extremely surprised if Subversion could not handle it. I'd
like to know more about the problems that the OO.o devs ran into.
> Are th
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:59 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> The CLA lists the name as "Sidney Philip Rhodes" - not sure why Philip
> was omitted from the file that records the CLAs.
> It's signed: "Philip Rhodes".
>
Yep, that would be me. Sidney is my first name, but since *both* of my
grandfathers, and my
On 3 June 2011 02:44, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:00 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> Specifically, here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#unlistedclas
>>
>> but again I don't see your name
>>
>>
> Actually, it is there. It's just under my first name "Sidney" instead
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:00 PM, sebb wrote:
> Specifically, here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#unlistedclas
>
> but again I don't see your name
>
>
Actually, it is there. It's just under my first name "Sidney" instead of my
middle name, which I usually go by. :-)
That is, a
Benson Margulies wrote on 06/02/2011 09:19:32 PM:
>
> The proposal, as I read it, doesn't address the license status of
> third party software dependencies.
>
I'll get something into the proposal on the wiki. I think someone has
mistaken the "external dependencies" section as meaning infrastr
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/02/2011 08:12:40 PM:
> 2. This incubator project, which sets out to be the "Firefox of
> OpenOffice", should proceed pretty much as described, but under a
> name other than OpenOffice (just as Firefox got a different name).
> Something like "Apache ODF Suite" that de
The proposal, as I read it, doesn't address the license status of
third party software dependencies.
The one time that I endeavoured to build OOo from source, it had a
long list of mandatory dependencies.
Reference http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
While some of them might qualify as 'p
That isn't an impediment to Philip adding his name into the list of initial
committers though. It just means he has to fax a CLA before he can get an id
right?
Alasdair Nottingham
On 3 Jun 2011, at 02:00, sebb wrote:
> Specifically, here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#unl
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Luke Kowalski wrote:
> The following project is being sent in as an incubator candidate.
The "Required Resources" section of the proposal is pretty
minimalistic listing only two mailing lists, JIRA, Subversion &
download site. While it is not necessary IMO to detai
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 22:42, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> The existing of TDF and the preference of its contributors for
>> copyleft is data, but for me it's not data that could persuade me to
>> vote -1 in this PMC. I don't care if there are 5,000 peopl
Specifically, here:
http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#unlistedclas
but again I don't see your name
On 3 June 2011 01:59, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Philip,
>
> please check here - http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
>
> I don't think i see your name there
>
> -- dims
>
> On
Philip,
please check here - http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
I don't think i see your name there
-- dims
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Phillip Rhodes
wrote:
> Hmmm... I was never a committer, somebody else applied that patch... but I
> was asked to fax in a CLA. Not sure if tha
So,
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:55 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Questionable? If only 54 people have checked in code in the last 6
> months, then no amount of magic with source code indentation is going to
> get you to 400 developers. If you disagree, I'd like to see the magic you
> ca
Hmmm... I was never a committer, somebody else applied that patch... but I
was asked to fax in a CLA. Not sure if that helps or not. :-)
Phil
On Jun 2, 2011 8:25 PM, "Sam Ruby" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Phillip Rhodes
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Jim Jagielski
On 3 Jun 2011, at 02:32, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The
> LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the
> LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contributions and insert
> th
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> > As a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community, I would like to
offer
> > my thoughts on the Oracle/IBM proposal.
> Thanks for the very well-written and well-reasoned post.
+1
--- Noel
Hello Simon,
This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The
LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the
LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contributions and insert
them into an Apache Licensed project without the approval of th
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Phillip Rhodes
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Under the list of proposed committers, yes.
>> --
>
> Awesome. I should already have a CLA on file, from when I made a
> contribution to Roller Weblogger a few years back. That was,
"Allen Pulsifer" wrote on 06/02/2011 06:58:45
PM:
>
> As a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community, I would like to
offer
> my thoughts on the Oracle/IBM proposal.
>
Thanks. This is a great summary of the history.
.
.
.
>
> Despite the fact the IBM's vision for OpenOffice seems
TL;DR version: I think I see people talking past each other for a bunch of
reasons, and I have a compromise proposal that might make things easier. It's
at the bottom, and explained in some detail in the middle.
Introduction
Before I start I will introduce myself. I was at Sun for
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
> Under the list of proposed committers, yes.
> --
Awesome. I should already have a CLA on file, from when I made a
contribution to Roller Weblogger a few years back. That was, however, some
time ago. Is there a way to confirm that my CL
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:58:45PM -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> As a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community, I would like to offer
> my thoughts on the Oracle/IBM proposal.
>
Thanks for the very well-written and well-reasoned post.
--
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:37:47PM -0400, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> For those of us who are interested in volunteering to support the new Apache
> OpenOffice podling,
> what is the correct procedure to state such interest? Should one add
> themselves to the
> wiki version of the proposal under "comm
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 19:06, Steve Loughran wrote:
> On 01/06/2011 17:33, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>...
>> have the exactly numbers, but there are significant users of the following
>> OpenOffice derivatives:
>>
>> - LibreOffice
>> - IBM Lotus Symphony
>> - EuroOffice
>> - BrOffice (which so
On 01/06/2011 17:33, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Jukka Zitting wrote on 06/01/2011 12:13:09 PM:
Community
OpenOffice.org. seeks to further encourage developer and user
communities
during incubation, beyond the existing developers currently working on
the
project.
Any thoughts on
On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
For those of us who are interested in volunteering to support the
new Apache
OpenOffice podling,
what is the correct procedure to state such interest? Should one add
themselves to the
wiki version of the proposal under "committers?" Or "other?
On 01/06/2011 17:21, Ross Gardler wrote:
Thanks for this exciting proposal. I have a few questions.
There are only two initial committers identified in the proposal. Why
only two for such a large codebase?
It's going to be very hard for two committers to manage and maintain
this code.
The prop
As a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community, I would like to offer
my thoughts on the Oracle/IBM proposal.
For a long time, we had the situation where Sun released OpenOffice under
the LGPL, but insisted that any contributions to the official OpenOffice
distribution include a copyright a
For those of us who are interested in volunteering to support the new Apache
OpenOffice podling,
what is the correct procedure to state such interest? Should one add
themselves to the
wiki version of the proposal under "committers?" Or "other?"
Thanks,
Phillip
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> This whole topic seems to suffer from malformed or uninformative subject
> lines.
>
> I submit that it's not the purview of the ASF or the Incubator PMC to
> achieve world peace, or whirled peas, or a single project for open
> source docume
Excellent Rob! FYI Celix [1] entered the inucbator with just one
single initial committer and thus I'd say there's was no point at any
time requiring hundreds of developers backing the proposal.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/celix.html
Cheers
Daniel
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:12 AM,
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:12 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Yegor Kozlov wrote on 06/02/2011 01:36:52 PM:
>
>>
>>> I can't speak for the whole project, but personally I'd be interested
> in
>>> discussing how the POI mission statement could be expanded, and if
> that'd
>>> work well for eve
Greg Stein wrote on 06/02/2011 05:45:57 PM:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55, wrote:
> > dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> >> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even
think
> >> it'
On 2 June 2011 22:42, Benson Margulies wrote:
The existing of TDF and the preference of its contributors for
> copyleft is data, but for me it's not data that could persuade me to
> vote -1 in this PMC. I don't care if there are 5,000 people out there
> who are firmly planning to stick to TDF lik
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55, wrote:
> dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
>>
>> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
>> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
>> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
>> a
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
>> code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
>
> Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the
> problems you experienced with Sub
This whole topic seems to suffer from malformed or uninformative subject lines.
I submit that it's not the purview of the ASF or the Incubator PMC to
achieve world peace, or whirled peas, or a single project for open
source document software.
Oracle has granted code to the ASF. A group of people
On 2 June 2011 21:22, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Florian Effenberger wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > If there is a community split, that decision will rest solely on those
> > > who choose not to join our all-inclusive environment.
>
> > So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a
Sorry no tab keys involved ... I'd like to indent with spaces :D :D
Cheers
Daniel
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:55 PM, wrote:
> dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
>>
>> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
>> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I
dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
> analytics at this point in time. There is a say
Charles H. Schulz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Oracle's move with OO.o will fully open the project to all participants
> > and use-cases, including those who might previously have had to enter
> > into alternate, paid, licensing arrangements with the copyright holder.
> And it comes with ar
Rob,
IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
analytics at this point in time. There is a saying in this regards "I
only believe in stati
> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
> code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the
problems you experienced with Subversion. Our infrastructure team, working
closely over the y
Hello Noel,
2011/6/2 Noel J. Bergman
> Florian Effenberger wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > If there is a community split, that decision will rest solely on those
> > > who choose not to join our all-inclusive environment.
>
> > So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a communi
Le 2 juin 11 à 22:26, Christian Lippka a écrit :
Hello,
Hello Christian,
The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion
repository as a required resource.
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the
main code and it didn't work well for a project this
On 02/06/2011 21:26, Christian Lippka wrote:
Hello,
The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion repository as
a required resource.
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
code and it didn't
work well for a project this size. I do not like to start a
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:26, Christian Lippka wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion repository as a
> required resource.
>
> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main code
> and it didn't
> work well for a project this size. I
Hello,
The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion repository as
a required resource.
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
code and it didn't
work well for a project this size. I do not like to start a religious
ware so from my point of
view
On 02/06/2011 21:16, dsh wrote:
Of course I now some more magic than just re-indent a codebase... that
would be to easy to spot wouldn't it ;)
Indeed, I inadvertently found what I believe to be the best approach.
Commit an svn:props change to a template that is an svn:external in 30+
of ASF
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > If there is a community split, that decision will rest solely on those
> > who choose not to join our all-inclusive environment.
> So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is
> our (=TDF) fault. However, if the peop
dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:05:38 PM:
>
> IMHO you should not discuss or question the LO community size
> respective its vitality in any way at this place. That's certainly not
> the scope of the OpenOffice Apache incubation proposal anyway. The
I disagree. The question was raised on the list w
Oh, totally agree. It is useful as a rough measure, but completely
ignores many other forms of contribution.
*shrug*
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:16, dsh wrote:
> Of course I now some more magic than just re-indent a codebase... that
> would be to easy to spot wouldn't it ;)
>
> Seriously: I doubt
Of course I now some more magic than just re-indent a codebase... that
would be to easy to spot wouldn't it ;)
Seriously: I doubt some code analysis or commit log analysis practices
especially if the goal would be to make an assertion about someones
"performance". IMHO that leaves a bad taste in a
On Jun 2, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>
> That's a tough one, Jim :-)
It's what I do :)
>
> my personal feeling (I'm not speaking
> on behalf of TDF on this one) is that we didn't have enough time/opportunity
> to understand each other more. And now, we are looking at a hairball
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:05, dsh wrote:
>...
> Final note on commit log analysis - if that's a criterion how to
> define an active ASF "participant" my most active times are certainly
> pretty dated but of course I would know how to teak commit logs to
> make me look more active if I'd ever like
Rob,
IMHO you should not discuss or question the LO community size
respective its vitality in any way at this place. That's certainly not
the scope of the OpenOffice Apache incubation proposal anyway. The
goal of the proposal as I understand it is to build a vital community
around it at the ASF an
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 15:48, Charles-H. Schulz
wrote:
>...
> Well, would you be happy with the second part of the sentence you're
> alluding to? To repeat it, LibreOffice and the Document Foundation embody de
> facto most of the OpenOffice.org community, and even beyond.
I certainly would agree
Jim,
2011/6/2 Jim Jagielski
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:34 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > Sense 2 is a but more subjective, since each person might have their own
> > vision of what the ideal community would look like.
>
> Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting goin
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related communities.
>
> If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
> explained in the proposal before we vote on it.
+1 (not binding)
Cheers,
Andreas
-
Rob,
2011/6/2
> charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
>
> > No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
> never
> > done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
> us
> > have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and
On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:34 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> Sense 2 is a but more subjective, since each person might have their own
> vision of what the ideal community would look like.
Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
south in OOo, but before TDF was formed
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
> No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
never
> done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
us
> have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm
> quest
Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/02/2011
03:01:26 PM:
>
> Hello,
>
> as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other
> messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented:
>
> Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
> > If there is a community split, that
Hi Christian,
Christian Grobmeier wrote on 2011-06-02 21.09:
Noel wants surely express OOo is open to everybody and there is no
intention to split anything. Lets not speak about "faults" or
anything. It is even possible that both communities can benefit from
each other. Whatever, its not about
On 6/2/2011 11:07 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
>> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
>> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
>> do know about
> One simple example: Imagine the Apache project as the core
> "guts" of OOo, the framework. With TDF working on parts
> that extend and enhance OOo, in a modular fashion, for
> a particular set of end-users... or something like that.
+1
Best,
Jomar
-
On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
>> If there is a community split, that
>> decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our all-inclusive
>> environment.
>
> So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a communi
Hi Florian
> So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is our
> (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator project
> do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault.
Noel wants surely express OOo is open to everybody and there is no
intentio
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
wrote:
>
> I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think nobody
> wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate
> than pretending the elephant in the room (LibreOffice, the Document
> Foundation) do
Hello,
as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other
messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented:
Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
If there is a community split, that
decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our all-inclu
First off, as we've seen with other projects that have gone through
Incubation, we have not chosen to avoid areas where others have projects.
Simply put, if there is interest from a community, we seek to be supportive.
If this proposal goes through, and the ASF chooses to incubate OO.o,
everyone w
Hello Rob,
2011/6/2
> charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:
>
> > I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> > project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
> and
> > Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from
Hi...
Apache Isis release candidate 0.1.2-RC2-incubating vote has been canceled.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dan Haywood
Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:32 PM
Subject: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Apache Isis release candidate 0.1.2-RC2-incubating
To: isis-...@incubator.apache.org
This vo
Yegor Kozlov wrote on 06/02/2011 01:36:52 PM:
>
> > I can't speak for the whole project, but personally I'd be interested
in
> > discussing how the POI mission statement could be expanded, and if
that'd
> > work well for everyone.
> >
>
> On the web site we say that the Apache POI Project's m
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:
> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
and
> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has
never
> contrib
> I can't speak for the whole project, but personally I'd be interested in
> discussing how the POI mission statement could be expanded, and if that'd
> work well for everyone.
>
On the web site we say that the Apache POI Project's mission is to
create and maintain Java APIs for Microsoft Document
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on
> repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than
> moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage
> of the current opportunities that are now open to us, the
On 6/2/2011 11:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> We know the *precise* list of files that we have rights to. They are
> explicitly specified in the software grant recorded by the Secretary.
>
> For all other files not listed: we have no special rights. Those files
> would be under their original licen
> All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on
> repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than
> moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage
> of the current opportunities that are now open to us, then
> we need to adjust priorities a bit
+1
We are pleased to annouce the inaugural release of Apache Lucy™, version 0.1.0!
Apache Lucy is full-text search engine library written in C and targeted
at dynamic languages. The inaugural release provides Perl bindings.
Lucy is a "loose C" port of Apache Lucene™, a search engine librar
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:19, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>...
> I guess I've seen too many failures to launch at incubator to support any
> more projects coming in which are not in the realistic position to publish
> working results as AL works. So without these answers, I personally would
> vote
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> ??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my
>> comment... huh?
>
> Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was:
>
> "this was a missed opportunity t
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:23, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>...
> Is this correct? From what we've witnessed, the Board appears to have
> presented this to the incubator on behalf of the proposers. Although this
> doesn't change the need for the incubator to vote to accept the podling,
> it does s
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my
> comment... huh?
Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was:
"this was a missed opportunity to reunite" - "agree on that point" - "move on"
This seems like a pr
On 2 June 2011 17:18, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> >>> As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
> >>> opportuni
On 6/1/2011 11:07 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 22:52, wrote:
>> ...
>> What am I missing here?
>>
>> According to the Incubation Policy [1]:
>>
>> "A Sponsor SHALL be either:
>>
>>* the Board of the Apache Software Foundation;
>>* a Top Level Project (TLP) within the Apa
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> And till now, I see no efforts to build a new community.
> I see no inspiration either to get people to contribute to Apache OpenOffice.
>
You do realize that all this is about 24hrs old right?
You might as well look at a newborn and say "ti
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>>> As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
>>> opportunity to reunite.
>>
>> If we all agree on th
On 6/1/2011 10:37 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>
>> Other Works
>>
>>* You can use the Creative Commons Attribution License
>> ("Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5").
>> We only accept work under this license that is non-editab
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>>> As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
>>> opportunity to reunite.
>>
>> If we all agree on that point, can we
+1 (binding)
Signature and checksums of source and binary tarball are ok.
DISCLAIMER file is there.
NOTICE and LICENSE files look ok.
Build from sources worked under Linux (tests failed under MacOSX)
Two notes for future releases:
- The tarballs are signed with a 1024Bit DSA key. According to
htt
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
