Leo,
Many of the folks in the ActiveMQ project already have been through
the incubation process once before when we put Geronimo though. It's
not like this is our first rodeo. So in our eyes we really do think
we are very close to having satisfied the incubation requirements. I
think Alan was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
How about ActiveCluster ActiveIO? :) They are architectural
component of AMQ as well?
Are you looking for obstacles?
- --
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist
nope. just a review.
On 3/16/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
How about ActiveCluster ActiveIO? :) They are architectural
component of AMQ as well?
Are you looking for obstacles?
- --
#ken
One of my pet peeves was that there was little or no discussion on
many aspects of the proposals in the Geronimo dev list before the pmc
decided to sponsor it. Am just making sure there are no unknowns with
my incubator pmc hat on. I'd like to thank James and Alan for taking
the time to answer all
On 3/16/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
Ken wrote:
I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
my first pass definition is quite different:
an umbrella is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
at this time, and in no way a 'dis is how t'ings is gonna
be' statement. Right? :-)
What makes a project with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
What if folks involved in the project on the Geronimo project don't
want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
to go TLP? Or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the
communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and
they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation
where we do all of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
What if folks involved in the project on the Geronimo project don't
want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
to go TLP? Or
On 3/15/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray
area.
I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
has no deliverable packages of its own, only
On 3/15/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
would jakarta have been any less an umbrella if three years ago we'd started
rolling a huge jakarta.jar?
Most likely, noone would have used it (in particular, not the
developers), so you are right: Roys's definition may be formally
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it
should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is
Alan,
There is something going on that i can't really put my finger on.
- The large # of committers who don't really commit
- The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't
see a separate jar).
- The
On 3/15/06, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/15/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
would jakarta have been any less an umbrella if three years ago we'd started
rolling a huge jakarta.jar?
Most likely, noone would have used it (in particular, not the
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
Which part of Personally, I believe wasn't clear? ;-)
What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella
is a gray area.
I've posted *my*
On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...snip good stuff..
Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
...snip good stuff..
Jakarta and XML have gone that 'federation' route with a bunch of
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
community.
Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to see a
number of those projects at the ASF.
The vision was to
On 3/15/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...snip good stuff..
Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
...snip good stuff..
Jakarta and
James Strachan wrote:
What other issues are there?
A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
community. Such things
robert burrell donkin wrote:
Ken wrote:
I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
my first pass definition is quite different:
an umbrella is a project where there is the legal and formal
organization
Henri Yandell wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation
(although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and
they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but
from the Foundation/Board's
If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good goal
eventually.
We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
long way to go before it's
David Blevins wrote:
Lots of good stuff, thanks. :-)
If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good
goal eventually.
We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
the past two plus
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Alan,
There is something going on that i can't really put my finger on.
- The large # of committers who don't really commit
This is a perennial issue w/ incubation, IIRC. Do we give commit to all
original committers and take it away from inactive ones or do we go
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
James Strachan wrote:
What other issues are there?
A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
having demonstrated that they understand how to practice
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I do feel that some of it does come down to being able to
convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that
the community really does get it regarding ASF principles
and practices.
There are a number of definitions for the word subjective.
An operational
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and
Geronimo
PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see
communities
having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
community. Such things are subjective, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I don't see any rush here.
I think your initial 'what do we need to work on in order
to eventually graduate?' message got interpreted by some
- -- probably myself included -- as a 'what are the last
items to check off so we
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
- The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone?
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ
(James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project)
That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
Not at this time. We're still
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly
given Noel's opinion that [...]
Keep in mind that is *my* opinion. The Incubator PMC as a whole may or may
not agree.
For a guy who is seriously
That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST
will be, as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted.
Hmmm ... or perhaps I hadn't made it as clear as I thought I had. I just
went back and found that
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
And should have been on general@incubator.apache.org, not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whether or not to cross-post to a myriad of other lists is a separate
question of netiquette. And
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache
hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread
here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for
imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better
import tool.
Please keep in
Noel,
Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
community. The vision was to have a single community focused on
building a modular server architecture based on a single core. The
global deliverable
On 15 Mar 2006, at 03:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe
that it
should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is
separately
releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE
server,
and would do better
On 3/14/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of interest, who decides on if its going to be a TLP or
Geronimo sub project how is that decision made?
Only the Board can approve a new TLP. If the Board does not approve a
podling as a TLP, the Incubator PMC is then responsible
40 matches
Mail list logo
