El vie, 17-04-2009 a las 10:41 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin escribió:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
* IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Santiago Gala santiago.g...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel happy that TLPs have to exercise judgement calls. They decide if
a small component is appropriate, the incubator handles IP clearance
oversight and they adopt the one/two committers, handing community
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
* IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively
admitting a graduating podling as a subproject is of great weight with
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
We have enough instruments and proof that the incubator works for
small projects as well. Ivy is one such project.
there's always an exception to any rule :-)
though a small codebase, ivy had quite a broad
We have enough instruments and proof that the incubator works for
small projects as well. Ivy is one such project.
Martijn
On Friday, April 17, 2009, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
opinions?
Is there any purpose beyond having a process for process sake and, as
you say, avoiding PMCs to make judgment
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO more process is sadly inevitable as apache scales
If so, I think something dies with it... And critics saying that ASF
is not sustainable was right. Well
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
* IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively admitting
a graduating podling as a subproject is of great weight with regard to
whether the aggregate community situation would meet volume +
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
From: Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org
Subject: Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 4:47 AM
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM,
Matt Benson
Matt Benson wrote:
I'll apologize in advance because I will probably sound like a total dick
in this email being
that I'm irritated for unrelated reasons at the moment.
LOL Sorry to hear it, but I must have missed the part where you were so
acting.
let it now be known that Commons will not
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
From: Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
Subject: RE: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 11:30 AM
Matt Benson wrote:
I'll apologize in advance
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is working *now*. Just as Jakarta was working once. But
Commons will most likely no longer work when it is growing too much.
And the things discussed here (making Commons the target of many new
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is working *now*. Just as Jakarta was working once. But
Commons will most likely no longer work when it is growing too much.
And
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
or even a sub project
We agree! We have several projects here that I believe belong in Commons!
May be. But please consider the following:
- Commons
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
There seems to be some concern in Commons that committers are a threat
to the existing codebase.
I know the concerns you mention and felt them very much in the
discussion about JSch. But, at least for me personally, I
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could graduate into Commons?
Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active committers, upon a
vote of the Incubator and in particular of the project's mentors.
Sounds like a
2009/4/14 Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com:
Craig Russell wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Torsten Curdt wrote:
Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
or even a sub project
We agree! We have several projects here that I believe belong in
Commons!
For example, we
On 14/04/2009, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could graduate into Commons?
Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active committers, upon a
vote of the
El mar, 14-04-2009 a las 10:28 +0100, sebb escribió:
On 14/04/2009, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could graduate into Commons?
Commons adopts the Sanselan
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:28 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/04/2009, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could graduate into Commons?
Commons adopts the
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 1:22 AM
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:42 AM
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 04:34, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
That's code. What about community, Torsten? What is the Community? It has
been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects. Is that to
change? We do
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:15, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means
to
join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain trust
with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@vafer.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:15, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
And the person
should be considered more trustworthy than most with respect to making
patches, given that they are the contributors of the code in the
On Apr 9, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
Note: Resending due to my having neglected the [PROPOSAL] subject
line earlier.
==
Commons Incubator Proposal
ABSTRACT
The Commons Incubator would act as a perpetual podling or mini-
Incubator overseeing the
No harsh feelings but I give up. You do not hear what I am saying.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 14:32, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org wrote:
Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
go through
. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
From: Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 9:49 PM
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com
wrote:
The Commons Incubator would act
El lun, 13-04-2009 a las 18:29 +0200, Torsten Curdt escribió:
No harsh feelings but I give up. You do not hear what I am saying.
I tend to agree with Niclas in this area, though the last exchanges you
had with Noel led me closer to understand the points we seem to be
missing. I guess we are
Torsten Curdt wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
That's code. What about community, Torsten? What is the Community? It
has
been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects. Is that to
change? We do not want Apache Commons to turn into an umbrella, right?
We
need to keep that as
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
The primary obstacle to Commons using the normal Incubator practices is the
community exit requirements. We feel that, due to the small size/scope of a
Commons component, a podling graduating into Commons should be
El sáb, 11-04-2009 a las 11:28 +0200, Torsten Curdt escribió:
I think this is a self-imposed constraint.
Indeed it is.
Many other projects have no
problem bringing in 'bulk' via IP Clearance and taking in one or two
committers with it.
Well, some do :) That's why now there is the
El sáb, 11-04-2009 a las 19:56 +1000, Gavin escribió:
-Original Message-
From: tcu...@vafer.org [mailto:tcu...@vafer.org] On Behalf Of Torsten
Curdt
Sent: Saturday, 11 April 2009 7:26 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
On Sat
El dom, 12-04-2009 a las 12:35 +0800, Niclas Hedhman escribió:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
You're insinuating too much here. Simply put the commons PMC would
want to see committers in action before making them full blown Commons
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
You're insinuating too much here. Simply put the commons PMC would
want to see committers in action before making them full blown Commons
Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
That's code. What about community, Torsten? What is the Community? It has
been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects. Is that to
change? We do not want Apache Commons to turn into an umbrella, right? We
need to keep
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
The Commons Incubator would act as a perpetual podling or
mini-Incubator overseeing the influx of components to be
adopted into Apache Commons.
-1 (vote, not veto).
-1 from me, at least for now, for the same reasons:
If
My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means
to
join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain trust
with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a
committer.
Trust related to what? Keep in mind that Committer != PMC member,
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org wrote:
Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2 developers.
They want to bring this code to Commons. What to do? IP clearance is
one thing. But what
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
The current state of affairs makes it highly impractical for any codebase
that includes IP from a non-ASF-committer to enter Apache Commons.
I think this is a self-imposed constraint. Many other projects have no
problem
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:22, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org wrote:
Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2 developers.
They want to bring
I think this is a self-imposed constraint.
Indeed it is.
Many other projects have no
problem bringing in 'bulk' via IP Clearance and taking in one or two
committers with it.
Well, some do :) That's why now there is the proposal I guess ;)
cheers
--
Torsten
-Original Message-
From: tcu...@vafer.org [mailto:tcu...@vafer.org] On Behalf Of Torsten
Curdt
Sent: Saturday, 11 April 2009 7:26 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:22, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote
My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means to
join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain trust
with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a committer.
Now if someone has a nice great big chunk of code, or even a whole
--- On Sat, 4/11/09, Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org wrote:
From: Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009, 5:44 AM
My view, and I believe Torstens
view is that to become a committer means
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Gavin ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote:
-Original Message-
From: tcu...@vafer.org [mailto:tcu...@vafer.org] On Behalf Of Torsten
snip
The incubator approach just doesn't work well for projects that have a
very small scope and user base IMO.
+1
the
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 21:24, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Gavin ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote:
-Original Message-
From: tcu...@vafer.org [mailto:tcu...@vafer.org] On Behalf Of Torsten
snip
The incubator approach just
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org wrote:
Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2 developers.
They want to bring
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
You're insinuating too much here. Simply put the commons PMC would
want to see committers in action before making them full blown Commons
committers. This is no different from any of the other incubations
that
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
The Commons Incubator would act as a perpetual podling or mini-Incubator
overseeing the influx of components to be adopted into Apache
Well, the point is: we are talking about small libraries.
Imagine there is library X which was developed by only 2 developers.
They want to bring this code to Commons. What to do? IP clearance is
one thing. But what about the 2 developers? Just make them committers
while they have no clue about
--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org wrote:
From: Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 5:32 AM
Well, the point is: we are
talking about small libraries.
Imagine
...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org wrote:
From: Torsten Curdt tcu...@apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 5:32 AM
Well, the point is: we are
talking about small libraries
Note: Resending due to my having neglected the [PROPOSAL] subject line earlier.
==
Commons Incubator Proposal
ABSTRACT
The Commons Incubator would act as a perpetual podling or mini-Incubator
overseeing the influx of components to be adopted into Apache Commons.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
The Commons Incubator would act as a perpetual podling or mini-Incubator
overseeing the influx of components to be adopted into Apache Commons.
-1 (vote, not veto).
If Commons PMC wants to import code, then it can file IP
54 matches
Mail list logo
