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. Ho
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 w
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 deve
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
http://people.apache.or
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 h
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
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
> >
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 healthy and self-sustai
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 h
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",
> 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. 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 BEA.
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 J
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 pat
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 individu
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
> >
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
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 resi
20 matches
Mail list logo
