On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
There is a discussion going on Tuscany dev list whether the SDO part
of
the community would like to join the new project in the event it
will
get approved in
ant elder wrote:
I think there was consensus with the Tuscany folks to join the new project
if it went ahead
That's what I was seeing. Coincidentally, I was just reading the mail
archives when your message came in.
but after assessing all the discussions and feedback from the Incubator
it
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a discussion going on Tuscany dev list whether the SDO part of
the community would like to join the new project in the event it will
get approved in incubation. Once there is a consensus, Kelvin will
There is a discussion going on Tuscany dev list whether the SDO part of
the community would like to join the new project in the event it will
get approved in incubation. Once there is a consensus, Kelvin will
update the proposal.
Also, we think we found a name for the project: Davos. It
ant elder wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
There is a discussion going on Tuscany dev list whether the SDO part
of
the community would like to join the new project in the event it will
get approved in incubation. Once there is a consensus, Kelvin will
update the proposal.
Status?
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
Of kelvin goodson
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:57 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet : Link Error - please use this link
On 19/02/2008, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
One topic from the tuscany-user
FYI, to date the discussion I opened on jcp-open to try to understand
people's experiences re developing reference impls in an environment that
fosters innovation is sadly inconclusive. There are 2 respondents to date,
one with a strong opinion that there is no conflict, and one proposing that
On 19/02/2008, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
One topic from the tuscany-user discussion that's worth exposing here
is whether the NNY project would be a pure RI with no extensions
beyond the spec, or a vehicle for innovation to extend the specs, as
both Tuscany SCA and SDO have
]/msg02505.html )
the new infrastructure would seem a better fit.
Cezar
-Original Message-
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:50 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet : Link Error
://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02505.html )
the new infrastructure would seem a better fit.
Cezar
-Original Message-
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:50 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet
)
the new infrastructure would seem a better fit.
Cezar
-Original Message-
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:50 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet : Link Error - please use this link
Fremantle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:50 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet : Link Error - please use this link
Cezar
I don't think anyone has suggested this code is a fork from Tuscany
--
From: kelvin goodson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 31 Jan 2008 09:47
Subject: Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet : Link Error - please use this link
To: general@incubator.apache.org
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NoNameYetProposal
That's what you get for employing reuse tactics -- gmail remembers
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Perhaps we should force all initial committers to divulge if they
are strictly involved in the effort as a work assignment, or if they
have a broader interest in the new podling?
+1
That said, we never judge people per-say [...]
I know. Just couldn't resist the
I don't group all IBM'ers, really - I actually believe IBM'ers do tons
of good in many open source projects. Also I think IBM itself is a
somewhat good open source citizen in several regards.
But it is not individuals that propose this particular project, as I
understand it: it is IBM and
Stefan
Thanks for the clearly thought out answer.
Paul
On Feb 4, 2008 5:55 AM, Stefan Hepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul,
I still think it is of value doing RIs at Apache, because it makes the
standard that is implemented more open and easier to consume.
I also think that the new JCP
Paul,
I still think it is of value doing RIs at Apache, because it makes the
standard that is implemented more open and easier to consume.
I also think that the new JCP process allows to do it more inline with
Apache rules, however it still requires some special treatment (and some
additional
On Feb 4, 2008 7:24 AM, Stefan Hepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't group all IBM'ers, really - I actually believe IBM'ers do tons
of good in many open source projects. Also I think IBM itself is a
somewhat good open source citizen in several regards.
But it is not individuals that
On Feb 4, 2008 4:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roland Weber wrote:
I think that is a bit oversimplified. IBM has strict rules about
open source participation. It is either on private time, such
as my involvement at Apache. Then the person is acting as an
individual.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roland Weber wrote:
I think that is a bit oversimplified. IBM has strict rules about
open source participation. It is either on private time, such
as my involvement at Apache. Then the person is acting as an
individual. Or it is on company time. Then the person is
Roland Weber wrote:
I think that is a bit oversimplified. IBM has strict rules about
open source participation. It is either on private time, such
as my involvement at Apache. Then the person is acting as an
individual. Or it is on company time. Then the person is doing
what he or she is paid
Leo
I am a mentor with Tuscany. I'm not concerned about where Tuscany is
now... I think its growing well and is progressing towards graduation.
However, Tuscany did have a significant fork a while back and this new
proposal has completely confused me: basically its a proposal for part
of what's
Paul,
The fork on Tuscany was not instigated by BEA. Of the three committers
who decided to leave Tuscany, due to technical differences and
otherwise, only Jim Marino was employed by BEA. Myself and Jeremy
Boynes were independent committers, though, Jeremy was employed by IBM
and leading the
On Feb 3, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Paul,
The fork on Tuscany was not instigated by BEA. Of the three committers
who decided to leave Tuscany, due to technical differences and
otherwise, only Jim Marino was employed by BEA. Myself and Jeremy
Boynes were independent
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Disclosure... I work for IBM.
So do I.
IBM'ers participate on projects as individuals and it's the actions of
individuals that should be judged.
I think that is a bit oversimplified. IBM has strict rules about
open source participation. It is either on private time, such
Meeraj, Jeremy
Please read my note again. At no point did I say or imply that BEA led
anything. The only thing I said about BEA was:
the two companies who couldn't agree to do it together in Tuscany.
Is there anything incorrect about that statement? I'm willing to be
corrected if I'm wrong.
But it is not individuals that propose this particular project, as I
understand it: it is IBM and BEA. And it was IBM that, in my view,
dumped the JSR 168 RI and then fled - not any individuals as such.
And IBM is also a significant force behind Tuscany, and have definitely not
fled. They
kelvin goodson wrote:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NoNameYetProposal
As Paul and Mattieu asked, since SDO is quite closely aligned with SCA, is
there any point or interest in working with, or joining, Tuscany?
--- Noel
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Feb 3, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Meeraj, Jeremy
Please read my note again. At no point did I say or imply that BEA led
anything. The only thing I said about BEA was:
the two companies who couldn't agree to do it together in Tuscany.
Is there anything
On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
this isn't exactly some court
Exactly.
Now, if I look through
http://apache.markmail.org/search/?q=pluto#query:pluto+page:1
+state:facets
pluto does not seem a problematic code dump project, and it also
definitely isn't a single
On Jan 31, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard
questions!
Nah, it's mostly because the mail threading on this thingie was
broken a few times. It makes things hard to follow. Simon -- please
use that reply-to button in
On Feb 2, 2008 6:08 AM, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, much more importantly, proposals should be evaluated on
their own merits, not based on what happened to some other unrelated
project 4 years ago.
+1
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
Leo Simons wrote:
Sure, activity is not
that high, and there's not a *huge* developer community, but there does
not really seem to be any problem, either. Apache doesn't require
projects to be huge successes (by whatever metric) as long as they're
healthy and self-sustaining.
This was not
On Feb 1, 2008 12:59 PM, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...Maybe the interesting question is whether you think - based on your
experience - if is is really appropriate to try to create a JCP RI as
an Apache incubator project?...
IMHO, Jackrabbit is a successful example of such an RI
Hi Paul,
what was it about the proposal section discussing Tuscany that confused
you? I think what we were trying to say is that this work belongs in a
project of it own, since Tuscany has a so much wider scope than this, and
the overall aims of the proposal are quite different. The new
Hi,
On Feb 2, 2008 10:24 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008 12:59 PM, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...Maybe the interesting question is whether you think - based on your
experience - if is is really appropriate to try to create a JCP RI as
an Apache
On Feb 2, 2008 6:47 AM, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard
questions!
Nah, it's mostly because the mail threading on this thingie was
broken a few times. It makes things
kelvin goodson wrote:
I think what we were trying to say is that this work belongs in a
project of it own ... The new project
requires an environment where it can focus on the clear aim of implementing
this JSR RI and TCK, or future versions,
Is this really what Apache is for?
without the
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Sure, activity is not that high, and there's not a *huge* developer
community, but there does not really seem to be any problem, either.
Apache doesn't require projects to be huge successes (by whatever
metric) as long as they're
here my response to Endre's mail
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200801.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]):
about Pluto V 1.x:
Due to the JCP process guidelines at that time you could not have early
public drafts and thus you are correct that the RI got to Apache very
late.
Stefan
Thank you for you insights and response.
Maybe the interesting question is whether you think - based on your
experience - if is is really appropriate to try to create a JCP RI as
an Apache incubator project?
Paul
On Feb 1, 2008 11:11 AM, Stefan Hepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
here my
Stefan Hepper wrote:
It is not true that after the JSR was final everything stopped. In fact
once we had finished 1.0 there was still work done to get to a more
stable 1.0.1 release. After that the pluto community re-structed the
code which led to the pluto 1.1 stream, so you can see that it
On Feb 1, 2008 10:04 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Fremantle wrote:
Kelvin, NoNameProposers
Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard
questions! So here I go:
Perhaps you can explain why this effort isn't being rolled into the
Tuscany
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 12:37 -0800, Matthieu Riou wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008 10:04 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Fremantle wrote:
Kelvin, NoNameProposers
Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard
questions! So here I go:
Perhaps you
On Feb 1, 2008 1:15 PM, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 12:37 -0800, Matthieu Riou wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008 10:04 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Fremantle wrote:
Kelvin, NoNameProposers
Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one
Hi all,
We've posted an Apache Incubator proposal onto the incubator wiki
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NoNameYetProposal
We haven't got a good name yet, SandStorm is a contender, as is Snowdon
Suggestions and comments welcome,
Kelvin.
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ThriftProposal
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NoNameYetProposal
That's what you get for employing reuse tactics -- gmail remembers the
original URL. I've been caught by this before, so I thought I had taken
appropriate action to avoid this behaviour, but sadly not so, apologies.
Kelvin
On 31/01/2008, kelvin
Kelvin, NoNameProposers
Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard
questions! So here I go:
Perhaps you can explain why this effort isn't being rolled into the
Tuscany work.
There are some obvious reasons why I am confused by this proposal:
1. Tuscany already has the
48 matches
Mail list logo
