Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
sponsored by the Incubator PMC for a new Validation podling. The goal
is to build a community ar
> [x] +1 to accept Validation into the Incubator
(non-binding)
> [] 0 don't care
> [] -1 object and reason why.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Donald Woods
>
>
> Proposal text from the wiki
>
> Validation
>
> Abstract
>
> The Validation project will deliver an implementation of the Bean
> Validati
+1
Go for it.
Craig
On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a
vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
sponsored by the In
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incubator PMC
On 02/23/2010 06:19 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
> Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
>> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>>
>> I would like to present for a vote the followin
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a
vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
sponsored by the Incub
On Feb 23, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
Donald Woods wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a
vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following pr
I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera, ...
-Donald
On 2/23/10 12:27 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> On 02/23/2010 06:19 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incubator PMC for
As I understand it from the proposal, they intend to be Apache Commons
Validation.
On 24/02/2010, at 4:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
> Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
>> champion to get moving :-), I'll ass
We're leaving the TLP/sub-project decision till graduation...
-Donald
On 2/23/10 5:36 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> As I understand it from the proposal, they intend to be Apache Commons
> Validation.
>
> On 24/02/2010, at 4:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
>> Donald
+1 to accept Validation into the Incubator
afterwards we still can see where it actually ends up
however I for sure want to see this at Apache.
If you guys need a champion or mentor, count me in !!
-M
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> We're leaving the TLP/sub-project d
On 02/23/2010 04:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incubator PMC for a new Va
+1
Martijn
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
+1
(non-binding)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> +1
>
> Martijn
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apach
Von: Matthias Wessendorf
> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean
> Validation
> An: general@incubator.apache.org, "Mark Struberg"
> Datum: Mittwoch, 24. Februar, 2010 04:22 Uhr
> +1 to accept Validation into
> the Incubator
>
>
Nick, are you still -1 because of the name, or will you change your vote
based on Alan's comment that the name could change when it graduates?
My thinking, is that if the project graduates to Commons then it'll
naturally be Commons Validator v2, whereas if it graduates to Geronimo
it would be a Ger
We already have Apache Commons Validator. Why not just bring this
code into that project?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> As I understand it from the proposal, they intend to be Apache Commons
> Validation.
>
> On 24/02/2010, at 4:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Fe
On Feb 24, 2010, at 8:18 AM, James Carman wrote:
> We already have Apache Commons Validator. Why not just bring this
> code into that project?
Heh. That's been pretty well discussed, already, by both Commons and Incubator.
You can scan the logs for details. The subject was "[PROPOSAL] Validati
+1
--kevan
On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incubat
Sorry, didn't read the proposal very closely. The idea was that it
would be brought into Commons Validator and become the 2.x codebase.
I like that idea and I would think it would be wise to go through the
incubator to make sure the codebase is donated "cleanly" to the ASF.
My point was mainly abo
I'm +1 to bringing this into the incubator with the intention of it
becoming Apache Commons Validator 2.x (per the proposal). I'm willing
to help from the Apache Commons side of things if I can or need to.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> +1
>
> --kevan
> On Feb 23, 2010, a
On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:22 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> +1 to accept Validation into the Incubator
>
> afterwards we still can see where it actually ends up
>
> however I for sure want to see this at Apache.
>
> If you guys need a champion or mentor, count me in !!
We have 3 mentors. If y
On Feb 24, 2010, at 8:55 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Sorry, didn't read the proposal very closely. The idea was that it
> would be brought into Commons Validator and become the 2.x codebase.
> I like that idea and I would think it would be wise to go through the
> incubator to make sure the codeba
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Yes. That's how I view it. It's more than code clearance, however. There are
> processes for that, already. Community building is why it is starting off as
> an Incubator project. I think graduating to become Commons Validator v2 is a
> gre
+1
Niall
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incuba
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
Donald Woods wrote:
> I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera, ...
Any of those work for me, though OpenValidation has a hint of the
same problem. BeanValidation might be ideal, and scans better than,
say JSR303-Validation :)
I'm
Allow me to introduce an Arabic name, cause I really would like to see
a project in a well known open community like ASF with an Arabic name
at least for once :D.
The Arabic word for validation is "Mohaqeq", which also means to
investigate the validity of something. Thoughts ?
On Tue, Feb 23, 201
+1 (non-binding).
OpenBeanValidation as a name will be cool :)
Thanks;
--Gurkan
2010/2/23 Donald Woods
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the follow
:-) that's OK, but somehow I like more fancy names.
-M
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> OpenBeanValidation as a name will be cool :)
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
> 2010/2/23 Donald Woods
>
>> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push fro
The proposal says that this will take over for Commons Validator. Why
are we still discussing names? We already have one, Commons
Validator.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> OpenBeanValidation as a name will be cool :)
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
> 2
On 2/23/10 10:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
sponsored by the Incubator PMC for a new Validation po
On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
> Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera, ...
>
> Any of those work for me, though OpenValidation has a hint of the
> same problem. BeanValidation might be
Given the feedback so far, I'm leaning towards BeanValidation as the
name and BVAL as the short name (for JIRA and mailing lists), since this
is a new codebase and not a natural follow-on to Common Validator 1.x.
There are features in Validator 1.x that will probably never be
implemented in this co
Hi Donald,
Names are a common issue to be resolved *during* incubation. See
JSecurity mail threads for a somewhat extreme example.
So, no, don't restart the vote.
Craig
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Given the feedback so far, I'm leaning towards BeanValidation as the
n
On 26 Feb 2010, at 19:01, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera, ...
>>
>> Any of those work for me, though OpenValidation
Thanks Matthias and I've added you as a mentor.
-Donald
On 2/23/10 10:22 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> +1 to accept Validation into the Incubator
>
> afterwards we still can see where it actually ends up
>
> however I for sure want to see this at Apache.
>
> If you guys need a champion or
The vote passes with the following +1 votes:
Craig Russell, Alan Cabrera, Luciano Resende,
Matthias Wessendorf, Jean-Frederic Clere,
Martijn Dashorst, Mark Struberg, Kevan Miller,
James Carman, Niall Pemberton, Bill Stoddard
Voting 0 or no vote specified:
Nick Kew (recended his initial -
On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On 26 Feb 2010, at 19:01, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera
Already done, unless there is something I missed...
http://old.nabble.com/-VOTE---PROPOSAL--Validation-incubator-for-JSR-303-Bean-Validation-to27705544.html#a27751839
-Donald
On 3/2/10 3:46 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>>
>&g
I've uploaded the incoming agimatec-validation source contribution to my
home directory on people -
/home/dwoods/agimatec-validation-0.9.6-src.tar.gz
-Donald
On 3/1/10 10:20 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> The vote passes with the following +1 votes:
> Craig Russell, Alan Cabrera, Luciano Resend
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> I've uploaded the incoming agimatec-validation source contribution to my
> home directory on people -
> /home/dwoods/agimatec-validation-0.9.6-src.tar.gz
>
> -Donald
I have created a main JIRA with various subtasks to o handle
Validation po
42 matches
Mail list logo
