On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 03:21 AM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I can't. Can you explain?
Geir:
I could - but to be honest I'm flat out on some really important stuff
that I have to close. Can we come back to this in maybe at the end of
this week? I'm sorr
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 02:50 AM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:08, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 00:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason:
I must confess that I am intrigued
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 02:50 AM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:08, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 00:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason:
I must confess that I am intrigued by your approach to
collabor
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 09:02 AM, peter royal wrote:
On Nov 9, 2003, at 1:52 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
We need CPAN, or apt-get, or fink, or something slightly more
dependency aware but not so much so that we sit on our thumbs waiting
for it to happen.
... there are no methods of stori
peter royal wrote:
On Nov 9, 2003, at 3:59 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
At the end a community vote decides the codebase to adopt or we can as
well be left with just one proposal.
This is what I had in mind from the beginning; what do you think?
Repo != a codebase. Its just a spec.
[EMAIL PROTE
On Nov 9, 2003, at 3:59 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
At the end a community vote decides the codebase to adopt or we can as
well be left with just one proposal.
This is what I had in mind from the beginning; what do you think?
Repo != a codebase. Its just a spec.
I don't think 'forced convergen
On Nov 9, 2003, at 1:52 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
We need CPAN, or apt-get, or fink, or something slightly more
dependency aware but not so much so that we sit on our thumbs waiting
for it to happen.
... there are no methods of storing large objects more efficient than
a modern
filesystem. St
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 16:07, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
What I meant is not about implementation, but about doing things
collaboratively rather than in competition.
Hopefully this can start with the repository effort. We've got Ruper,
Greebo and Wagon (Michal's refactoring
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
My idea of collaboration is something *totally* different.
It sure can be once you get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Neither of you has the most perfect record on collaboration. Fine. Please
drop it and focus on the actual task to be addressed. Sniping at each
> > My idea of collaboration is something *totally* different.
> It sure can be once you get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Neither of you has the most perfect record on collaboration. Fine. Please
drop it and focus on the actual task to be addressed. Sniping at each other
is not go
I would add one more requirement to above statement - namely
"machine-friendly". There is an emerging requirement for application
driven downloading that has the potential to significantly exceed the
classic browser driven requirements that the ASF is addressing today.
This has a direct impac
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:08, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 00:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Jason:
> >>
> >>I must confess that I am intrigued by your approach to collaboration!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's because you're at least as def
> Neither you or I are any great shining examples of an
> ideal collaborator. You'll have to bear with me while
> I try to make ammends. I will try to bear with you.
Let take this at face value: someone admitting to faults, pledging to
improve, asking for allowances while making even more mistakes
It is usually unwise to mix insults with requests. However,
the point of collaboration is not to obtain the civility of a
collegial discussion over tea; the point is to accomplish the
task. Continual discussion of issues that are not relevant to
the task being collaborated upon is not collaborati
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 00:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason:
I must confess that I am intrigued by your approach to collaboration!
That's because you're at least as deficient as I am in the realm of
collaboration. Neither you or I are any great shining examples of
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 00:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Jason:
>
> I must confess that I am intrigued by your approach to collaboration!
That's because you're at least as deficient as I am in the realm of
collaboration. Neither you or I are any great shining examples of an
ideal collaborator. Yo
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 23:18, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I have challenged you to give me a scenerio that I can't satisfy with
something like the current Maven repository. Instead you drone on ad
nauseum about the theoretical. Let's have a concre
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 23:18, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >I have challenged you to give me a scenerio that I can't satisfy with
> >something like the current Maven repository. Instead you drone on ad
> >nauseum about the theoretical. Let's have a concrete example.
> >
>
> Ja
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 21:47, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Small note - some of the participants on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] are
discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s)
of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut-
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 21:47, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> >> Small note - some of the participants on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] are
> >> discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s)
> >> of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut-and-dried
>
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Small note - some of the participants on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] are
discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s)
of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut-and-dried
implementation
solution. Some consider this area to be much more than an
Small note - some of the participants on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] are
discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s)
of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut-and-dried
implementation
solution. Some consider this area to be much more than an HTTP
download
handler. I
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 16:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think that producing a single repository, or at least a set of
mechanisms that allow a single storage facility to look like a
repository with multiple interfaces, is a task for infrastructure
and commons to work out (m
So if I understand this correctly the discussions on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
should now be conducted on infrastructure where we are talking about
the
physical layout of the repository in a file system that is accessible
via http.
It is my understanding that repository is a topic-specific mailing list
on
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 16:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I think that producing a single repository, or at least a set of
> mechanisms that allow a single storage facility to look like a
> repository with multiple interfaces, is a task for infrastructure
> and commons to work out (meaning that the peo
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 16:07, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 05:09, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> > Ok, I read what you said and we'll chalk it up to miscommunication and a
> > misunderstanding. I am admittedly obstinate and can be unflexible, I
> > nev
I think that producing a single repository, or at least a set of
mechanisms that allow a single storage facility to look like a
repository with multiple interfaces, is a task for infrastructure
and commons to work out (meaning that the people who have interest
in such a thing will work together to
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 05:09, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ok, I read what you said and we'll chalk it up to miscommunication and a
misunderstanding. I am admittedly obstinate and can be unflexible, I
never meant the level of animosity to grow to the point that it did. I
sincerely
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 05:09, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ok, I read what you said and we'll chalk it up to miscommunication and a
misunderstanding. I am admittedly obstinate and can be unflexible, I
never meant the level of animosity to grow to the point that it did. I
sincerely apologize.
> What I
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
It has already been done there, at http://www.krysalis.org/ruper/ .
Wasn't it already done with jjar and whatever the thingy in Maven is
called?
Not really, it does more... and to some extent less (IIUC
On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
It has already been done there, at http://www.krysalis.org/ruper/ .
Wasn't it already done with jjar and whatever the thingy in Maven is
called?
The developers of Ruper in the meantime have become Apache committers
(two for Gump
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 12:16, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
peter royal wrote:
On Nov 7, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The developers of Ruper in the meantime have become Apache committers
(two for Gump and one is coming in with JUDDI). The issue here is that
Mav
Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:18:05PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
It doesn't seem different at all. There are established codebases outside
of the ASF, e.g., Ruper and Greebo, existing communities around them, and an
ASF Member (you) interested in sponsoring them into the Incu
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
There is a discussion going on over at [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the
creation of an Apache jar and artifact repository. The discussion is
being constructive and is bringing in people from diverse efforts:
Maven, Ruper, Greebo, [EMAIL PROTECTED], and others.
* Who would like to
I completely agree with you Adam perhaps you email should also go to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list as well.
> > > This really smells like an extension and abstraction of what Maven
> > > provides and initiated. Why not do this effort under their umbrella?
>
> I believe the repository (or plural) n
Guys,
I'm afraid to get in the middle of this but I just wanted to give my
perspective on it.
> > If you want to call it "Incubating Ruper and have others join" it's ok
> > for me, as my initial idea is to use Ruper as a starting codebase, and
> > have others add stuff, but I didn't want to ma
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:18:05PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > There is a discussion going on over at [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the
> > creation of an Apache jar and artifact repository. The discussion is
> > being constructive and is bringing in people from diverse efforts:
> > Maven, Ruper, G
> There is a discussion going on over at [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the
> creation of an Apache jar and artifact repository. The discussion is
> being constructive and is bringing in people from diverse efforts:
> Maven, Ruper, Greebo, [EMAIL PROTECTED], and others.
> * Who would like to Sponsor it?
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 13:15, Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
> > > This really smells like an extension and abstraction of what Maven
> > > provides and initiated. Why not do this effort under their umbrella?
>
> I believe the repository (or plural) needs artefacts beyond what Java
> projects provide.
Ma
> > This really smells like an extension and abstraction of what Maven
> > provides and initiated. Why not do this effort under their umbrella?
I believe the repository (or plural) needs artefacts beyond what Java
projects provide. I believe it was intended to contain all apache content,
and not j
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 12:16, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> peter royal wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >> The developers of Ruper in the meantime have become Apache committers
> >> (two for Gump and one is coming in with JUDDI). The issue here is that
> >> M
peter royal wrote:
On Nov 7, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The developers of Ruper in the meantime have become Apache committers
(two for Gump and one is coming in with JUDDI). The issue here is that
Maven already has some code for this, and
http://greebo.sourceforge.net/ is part
On Nov 7, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The developers of Ruper in the meantime have become Apache committers
(two for Gump and one is coming in with JUDDI). The issue here is that
Maven already has some code for this, and
http://greebo.sourceforge.net/ is partecipating too.
If y
peter royal wrote:
On Nov 7, 2003, at 4:15 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Proposal:
This is a new kind of incubation that I'd like to try. It's not an
established project that wants to come to Apache, rather an effort
that wants to try and see if it can work, similar to Geronimo but
coming mainl
On Nov 7, 2003, at 4:15 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Proposal:
This is a new kind of incubation that I'd like to try. It's not an
established project that wants to come to Apache, rather an effort
that wants to try and see if it can work, similar to Geronimo but
coming mainly from Apache commit
- repository and board are CCed -
- please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
There is a discussion going on over at [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the
creation of an Apache jar and artifact repository. The discussion is
being constructive and is bringing in people from diverse efforts:
Maven, Ruper, Greebo,
46 matches
Mail list logo
