On 10/21/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20/10/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 20, 2006, at 3:34 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:
To be clear, our snapshots are more than a simple snap of
Subversion --
we (the Harmony community) discuss the right time to create the
On Sunday 22 October 2006 01:16, Tim Ellison wrote:
I was able to attend a US an EU ApacheCon and get my key signed by a
number of members, and in turn sign a number of other peoples', so I
believe that all the pieces are in place for me, and others in
Harmony, to conduct a bona fide release
On 20/10/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 20, 2006, at 3:34 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:
To be clear, our snapshots are more than a simple snap of
Subversion --
we (the Harmony community) discuss the right time to create the
development snapshot to accommodate known instability
On 20/10/06, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Look. You guys are freakin' nuts.
:-) that is a pre-req' for tackling something like harmony.
Tim
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Greg Stein wrote:
On 10/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. I said it would be useful to see if the community can make it
happen. I know that *some individuals* can, but that is different. I
didn't vote, I didn't say it was a requirement, just asked: why can't
you pull
On Oct 20, 2006, at 1:24 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On 10/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
...
I'd like to ask that those who have asked for a release to assuage
concerns about community health and capability to please read
Tim Ellison wrote:
To be clear, our snapshots are more than a simple snap of Subversion --
we (the Harmony community) discuss the right time to create the
development snapshot to accommodate known instability caused by work in
flight, publish the snapshot with the required incubator
On Oct 20, 2006, at 3:34 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:
To be clear, our snapshots are more than a simple snap of
Subversion --
we (the Harmony community) discuss the right time to create the
development snapshot to accommodate known instability caused by
work in
flight, publish the snapshot with
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I certainly hope that the concept of 'releasing the code' isn't just a tick
mark - I'd imagined (contrary to other proposals flying around) that it's the
end goal of nearly any collaborative effort at the ASF, no?
No, because then
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Last checkpoint, Has the sponsoring PMC [e.g. Board] voted to accept the
project? You have a few hours yet to put a resolution on their plate for
next week. And honestly - they would probably table it for review even if
you gave them a month lead time, so might
Oh, what a trip this has been.
I like consensus. I don't like out-of-the-blue discussion-less votes on
big issues (and Incubator graduation is a big issue). I prefer to have
a vote as an unambiguous ratification of what was agreed upon beforehand.
In retrospect, it might have been
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:32:04AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
If we can reach consensus (with the exception of Mads who doesn't want
to see Harmony here, and Roy for other good reasons due to my
stupidity), I'd like to then move to the ratification vote.
I'll withdraw most of my
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Oh, what a trip this has been.
:)
I'd like to ask that those who have asked for a release to assuage
concerns about community health and capability to please read those 3
testaments from the mentors (ok, in Leo's case, 71 or so...) and please
consider withdrawing
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I agree with the motivations behind asking for a release, but
disagree that a release is the only way to satisfy IPMC's need for
information about the health and capability of a podling's future
life as a TLP.
It isn't -- it is just
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
IMHO - the only reason to have a project (TLP or subproject, no matter) is
to release code. Anything prior to a release might be a sandbox, it might
be a podling, it might be a lose alliance of the willing. Whatever...
[snip]
That said ... I don't believe
Sam Ruby wrote:
Of course, one could simply manufacture a synthetic release for the
purposes of satisfying a perceived incubation requirement, but honestly,
that seems more like one of the ticky-marks driven processes I tend to
see within my day job than anything I would expect to see at
On 10/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
...
I'd like to ask that those who have asked for a release to assuage
concerns about community health and capability to please read those
3 testaments from the mentors (ok, in Leo's
Greg Stein wrote:
On 10/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
...
I'd like to ask that those who have asked for a release to assuage
concerns about community health and capability to please read those
3 testaments from the
Sam Ruby wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
IMHO - the only reason to have a project (TLP or subproject, no matter) is
to release code. Anything prior to a release might be a sandbox, it might
be a podling, it might be a lose alliance of the willing. Whatever...
[snip]
That said ... I
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
IMHO - the only reason to have a project (TLP or subproject, no matter) is
to release code. Anything prior to a release might be a sandbox, it might
be a podling, it might be a lose alliance of the willing. Whatever...
20 matches
Mail list logo
