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 o
There are some good ideas in here. Though I don't see Alan complaining.
I do see that Alan did compiled a list (STATUS file), pointed to it,
and sent the list out to people asking for feedback and discussion.
Seems like a positive start.
-David
On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Leo Simons wrote
Alan,
Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and something
incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, but never enough since most of those people
are volunteer
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:
>
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
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?
> -
-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, opinioni
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
> component of AMQ" as well?
Yes
Both those codebases sprang out of the ActiveMQ code (developed by a subset
of the ActiveMQ committers) but they turned out to be way too sm
How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
component of AMQ" as well?
On 3/16/06, 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 Acti
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 co
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? i don't
see a separate jar).
These are two sm
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? i don't
> > see a separate jar).
> >
>
> These are two small libraries used
-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
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 typ
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 o
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
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 a
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
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 p
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'
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
that
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 pe
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
> organ
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
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..
>
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, 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
'
> 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
On 3/15/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -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
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
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 consta
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 separate
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
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 it
-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
-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 th
-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
-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 wi
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 responsibl
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 as
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 wo
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 kee
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. An
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 bee
> > 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
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 serious
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 dis
47 matches
Mail list logo
