As long as the analogies are going I thought I'd continue the story
with more of my own
Things continue for a while. Mike is happy, Apache is happy. All is
well. Mike continues his life long passion of being a master carpenter
and Apache helps raise the family. What could be better?
...Then
On 3/20/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
> This 'how we release' conversation has been bouncing around the ASF
> for 4 months now, the above is my best grok on the summary. I've not
> seen anyone yet speaking in favour of a view that we should have a
> vote on t
Henri,
I appreciate what you did to help the POI project stand up and meet
Apache requirements. It is an ongoing process - I think the
subproject is close to doing it correctly and having a successful
release!
Cheers!
Dave Fisher
On Mar 19, 2007, at 10:58 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On 3
- Original Message -
From: "Rahul Akolkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta General List"
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Regexp 1.5
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Something being a good ide
Henri Yandell wrote:
This 'how we release' conversation has been bouncing around the ASF
for 4 months now, the above is my best grok on the summary. I've not
seen anyone yet speaking in favour of a view that we should have a
vote on the idea of releasing and then someone does it when they can.
Pl
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
>> Also I think I need to update
>> headers as per [3], is that correct?
>
> You also need a NOTICE file [3]
Updated license headers, added NOTICE to zip/tar.gz.
The NOTICE file is missing the copyright
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Something being a good idea and being "required ASF policy" are really
very different things.
The suffering is in the implication that I'm not already being
careful. That we're not all supposed to be slightly better than
average developers wit
On 3/18/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > You actually have to roll and sign a tarball/zip ball on which the vote
> > happens. "Release-then-Vote" seems to be the only accepted way by the
> > bo
On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
>> Also I think I need to update
>> headers as per [3], is that correct?
>
> You also need a NOTICE file [3]
Updated license headers, added NOTICE to zip/tar.gz.
The NOTICE file is missing the copyright statement - see:
http:/
I always prefer to optimize my loops by unrolling them and doing each
step differently.
Funny to talk about pattern matching in a regexp thread :-D
Burnt from my release time to have Yegor chew through some POI bugs ...
Regards,
Dave
On Mar 19, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Martin Cooper wrote:
>> > Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal
>> > protection.
>>
>> Who says there is no way to c
Yeah, well I consider voting on something that doesn't exist yet to be
absurd. So there we are.
This whole thread is absurd. There is no technical issue here.
cvs tag FOOBAR_1_0_RC1
ant
scp...
...crickets...
cvs TAG FOOBAR_1_0
ssh...
mv FOOBAR_1.0-RC1... FOOBAR_1.0-final...
-andy
--
Fr
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Martin Cooper wrote:
>> > Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal
protection.
>>
>> Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
> Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd procedures?
For example: community votes for a release, RM tags a release (and
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
> Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd
procedures?
Not me. We don't have absurd procedures, s
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 19:01 +0100, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
[... on vote-then-release ...]
Trust me, I have done my share of releases this way, too. The thing is,
that while it was/is common practice, there are ASF-wide guidelines that
are not there to hinder people / add administrative barriers
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
> Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd
procedures?
Not me. We don't have absurd procedures, so we're already ther
Martin Cooper wrote:
Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd procedures?
For example: community votes for a release, RM tags a release (and prepares
files), pmc rubber-stamps it with 'ACK' with
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Something being a good idea and being "required ASF policy" are really
very different things.
The suffering is in the implication that I'm not already being
careful.
So you've never made a mistake in your life? And you're willing to bet a
Something being a good idea and being "required ASF policy" are really
very different things.
The suffering is in the implication that I'm not already being
careful. That we're not all supposed to be slightly better than
average developers with the apache branding and all. The fact that
it's ok t
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope
it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws.
So the real problem as far as I can tell is making sure a release is
legitimately licensed. There are other things l
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok so I'm a liar...I did want to point out that from my experience
even the most formal voting process won't get the desired results -
that everyone on the project certifies and checks that the binaries
going out are good. More than likely 90%
Ok so I'm a liar...I did want to point out that from my experience
even the most formal voting process won't get the desired results -
that everyone on the project certifies and checks that the binaries
going out are good. More than likely 90% of the time everyone just
votes yes or no and trusts t
"Nathan Bubna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> that said, i would love to see some more automation of
> signature/hash/LICENSE/NOTICE/zip-tar-consistency checking. i believe
> Henk Penning does have some automated signature checking set up, but
> that's all i know of, and it only happens after the
On 3/19/07, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:30 -0400, Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope
> it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws.
>
> So the real problem as far as I can tell is makin
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:30 -0400, Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope
> it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws.
>
> So the real problem as far as I can tell is making sure a release is
> legitimately licensed. There are oth
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
Ehh...Obviously I'm alone in my opinion so I'll shut up now, just
wanted to make sure I got my two cents in.
Make that two of us. ASF today indeed contains much more Administratium (thanks
Dave, great link!) than it used to.
Vadim
---
You have to be kidding me..
The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies /
processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root "problem" is. I'm
sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has
happened in the past but these policies don't have any logic that
I think we have to remember that the ASF provides an important legal
umbrella here. By setting policies which we follow (which of course can be
debated), it prevents us from being sued if an SCO-type situation develops.
This would be a low-probability, but extremely catastrophic event,
especially
Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope
it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws.
So the real problem as far as I can tell is making sure a release is
legitimately licensed. There are other things like software quality,
but I guess it's assumed (by me
"Jesse Kuhnert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have to be kidding me..
>
> The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies /
> processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root "problem" is. I'm
> sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has
> happened in
I have a thought that may not be an immediate solution.
Isn't the correctness of a release from a build point of view a
testable condition? Shouldn't this be built in to the build system.
The apache servers would not allow an "invalid" package. They define
the pattern. Isn't this GUMP? Not
On 19/03/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You have to be kidding me..
The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies /
processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root "problem" is. I'm
sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has
happened in
sebb wrote on Monday, March 19, 2007 3:09 PM:
> On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>> Surely voting on creating a tag (if this is necessary)
>>
>> Absolutely. Any release tag must be a community decision == vote is
>> required.
>>
>>
>>> is completely diffe
You have to be kidding me..
The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies /
processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root "problem" is. I'm
sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has
happened in the past but these policies don't have any logic that
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> Surely voting on creating a tag (if this is necessary)
Absolutely. Any release tag must be a community decision == vote is required.
> is completely different from voting on a release?
Not to me.
Voting on a release (on a
sebb wrote:
Surely voting on creating a tag (if this is necessary)
Absolutely. Any release tag must be a community decision == vote is required.
is completely different from voting on a release?
Not to me.
Voting on a release (on a tag) signifies that software is in a state where it
can
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> resulting files. It's quick sine no actual software testing need to be
>> performed, just verify that zip unzips and tar untars.
>
> I think one also needs to check tha
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
resulting files. It's quick sine no actual software testing need to be
performed, just verify that zip unzips and tar untars.
I think one also needs to check that:
* that the various signature files are present and correct
* t
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Vadim,
>
> that is not the point. The procedure in itself is flawed.
You missed it too :) Existing procedure might be flawed in somebody's opinion,
and I'm not arguing that it is ideal, but proposed procedure
Or even better, let everyone follow their own procedures while loosely
fitting into a less restrictive set of obvious guidelines wrt
licensing / distribution locations /etc - so the rest of us don't have
to be punished because one or two projects are having issues getting
releases out
On 3/19
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Vadim,
that is not the point. The procedure in itself is flawed.
You missed it too :) Existing procedure might be flawed in somebody's opinion,
and I'm not arguing that it is ideal, but proposed procedure is even worse. It
makes any release impossible: release p
Vadim,
that is not the point. The procedure in itself is flawed. There might be
files now, but the procedure still has to be aligned to ASF wide guide
lines.
Before you wonder/think about conspiracy theories: Yes, I brought the
board (i.e. Henri) attention to this. It is necessary to change
Henri Yandell wrote:
3) Creating the actual files that are going to be released and voting
on them. There's pressure to go this way, but it's not the policy yet.
Vote has passed, so now actual files are made, and are available at the same
location [1].
Vadim
[1] http://people.apache.org/~vg
Henri Yandell wrote:
PS I noticed that you forgot to vote this year :-)
http://marc.info/?l=jakarta-general&m=11231425543
Vadim
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC
The vote to release passes with +1s from:
Vadim Gritsenko
Henning Schmiedehausen
Daniel F. Savarese
sebb
Henri Yandell wrote:
There are (to my knowledge) three types of vote/release styles that
have been happening at the ASF.
1) A vote to do a release, with no sign of release files. T
On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> You actually have to roll and sign a tarball/zip ball on which the vote
> happens. "Release-then-Vote" seems to be the only accepted way by the
> board these days;
Thankfully, neither events in velocity-pri
On 14/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> The LICENSE and NOTICE files are now in the zip and jar, but they show
> up for me as License and Notice. Ideally they should be in capitals.
They are:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/public_html/regexp $ tar -tzf
jakarta-regexp-1.5-dev.
sebb wrote:
The LICENSE and NOTICE files are now in the zip and jar, but they show
up for me as License and Notice. Ideally they should be in capitals.
They are:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/public_html/regexp $ tar -tzf
jakarta-regexp-1.5-dev.tar.gz | grep "dev/[^dsx]"
jakarta-regexp-1.5-dev/LICENSE
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 14/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
>> Also I think I need to update
>> headers as per [3], is that correct?
>
> You also need a NOTICE file [3]
Updated license headers, added NOTICE to zip/tar.gz.
> The LICENSE and NOTICE files ought to go into the jar as well,
sebb wrote:
Also I think I need to update
headers as per [3], is that correct?
You also need a NOTICE file [3]
Updated license headers, added NOTICE to zip/tar.gz.
The LICENSE and NOTICE files ought to go into the jar as well, as the
jar may well be used on its own.
Added both files to t
On 14/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Hm,
>
> I hate to spoil you here but according to a recent board discussion,
> some discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a completely botched release
> attempt in Velocity
My condolences to you...
> land:
>
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Hm,
I hate to spoil you here but according to a recent board discussion,
some discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a completely botched release
attempt in Velocity
My condolences to you...
land:
You actually have to roll and sign a tarball/zip ball on which the
Hm,
I hate to spoil you here but according to a recent board discussion,
some discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a completely botched release
attempt in Velocity land:
You actually have to roll and sign a tarball/zip ball on which the vote
happens. "Release-then-Vote" seems to be the only accept
Hi All,
With 5 recent bug fixes [1], one *major* speed improvement for {m,n} closures
[2], with other various optimizations to compiler and runtime, and with previous
release published sometime back in 2005 [3], now is the best, or at the very
least, really good time to to cut next, 1.5 releas
56 matches
Mail list logo
