personally i am fine with "incubation takes as long as it takes" statement.
it is your organization and it is up to you whether or not you want to let
the project into the incubator and into graduation. i also understand the
"need to observe open development style on apache ground" argument. what
though we were in the incubator for
a short time ( lets say a month ) it will not be blocked just because of its
timeframe.
thanks,
-Igor
On 8/9/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> personally i am fine with "incubation takes as long as it takes&
in wicket we use irc quiete a lot. we dont post all transcripts to the list
because in general they are too noisy to be of any use to anyone. we do have
them available for browsing on the web [1] though. we also have a search
engine that indexes our mailing list, wiki, irc logs, and a few select
w
On 8/10/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
bootstrapping a user list is discouraged. any users coming through the
apache site should be directed to the developer list during the
transitionary period whilst the incubator project is being
bootstrapped. (this does take some t
+1 :)
-Igor
On 8/28/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Welcome Wicket!
Thanks a lot everyone! Looking forward to start incubation.
Eelco
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-
On 11/9/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the original subject, CWiki does seem to be partially 'hidden' at
> Apache - I've tried to help, in terms of a patch to add it to the list
> of services documented at http://www.apache.org/dev/services.html#wiki
> (still waiting to be lo
On 11/9/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/9/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is not a kind of attitude i would expect from a professional
> organization. a big part of joining apache is the desire for a stable
and
> maintained infra
* release elsewhere, making sure to give things an appropriately different
name and making sure both users and the incubator PMC understand what
it
all means and what is going on
imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then
wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating
one issue that we are forgetting here and that needs to be mentioned is that
wicket 2.0 requires jdk5 while 1.x is jdk1.4. so im not sure how viable of
an option it is to freeze the featureset of 1.3 and only add bugfixes. a
good chunk of our community cannot migrate to jdk5 and we have promised t
we have updated the versions section of our proposal to reflect this. please
review and lets discuss, basically we would like to incubate 1.3 as well as
2.0.
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal
-Igor
On 7/31/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You summarized my though
hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope you
realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like
refactoring :)
-Igor
On 7/31/06, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On 7/26/06, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
i am getting a lot of mixed messages here. we have been told that
-incubating is nothing more then a tag that the project is in the incubator
and does not at all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness for
production use, but following is the opposite view taken from the maven2
repo t
to our existing userbase while maintaining a single infrastructure for
the project to have as-low-as-possible maintenance overhead. so i
think if we work that out - and we did outline our thoughts in the
wiki proposal - i think we will be good to go.
-Igor
On 7/31/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTEC
13 matches
Mail list logo
