RE: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

CTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:35 AM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: Re: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge) > > > I think one thing this conversation seems to have highlighted is that > there's plenty of good documentation all over the apache sites, we co

RE: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

Title: RE: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge) Done. It might go in jakarta-site2/site. I added a short introduction, that should be replaced by someone more knowledgeable. Un saludo, Alex. > -Mensaje original- > De: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > E

Re: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

g). James - Original Message - From: "Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Jakarta General List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:31 PM Subject: RE: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge) Ok, thank

Re: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

on 2/21/02 4:31 AM, "Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, including the valuable contributions of Marc and Jon, the annotated > Apache manual TOC would look like this. Now, format it as an xdoc .xml file @see and let

Re: ApacheForge

CTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: Re: ApacheForge > "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > on 2/20/02 8:35 AM, "Vladimir Bossicard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Log4J was hosted on Source

RE: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

febrero de 2002 20:19 > Para: Jakarta General List > Asunto: RE: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge) > > > Alex, > > That's a really good start. My only comment right now is to > point out that > some of the topics in this list are Jakarta specific and > Apache is m

RE: Re: ApacheForge

> -Original Message- > From: acoliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: ApacheForge > Just FYI > > There is also the traffic issue. If you have an active > project, sourcefor

RE: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

, though. Marc Saegesser > -Original Message- > From: Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:04 PM > To: 'Jakarta General List' > Subject: RE: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge) > > > Why not

Re: Re: ApacheForge

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:25:28 Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote. >"Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> on 2/20/02 8:35 AM, "Vladimir Bossicard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Log4J was hosted on SourceForge >>> POI was hosted on SourceForge >>> BCEL was hosted on So

Re: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

on 2/20/02 10:03 AM, "Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why not start it yourself and anyone can suggest changes. I love it when people 'get it'. :-) > On the other hand, why not start it myself. Something like this: You kick ass. Note that the majority of your bullet

Re: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

I don't think you understood what I said...so let me repeat... You give me a TOC and I will review and comment on it. :-) -jon on 2/20/02 9:50 AM, "Paul Hammant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon, > > Give us a TOC for what you think might be a good starting point. > >> That said, I will

RE: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

roducts. Giving credit. All that implied warranty things. Un saludo, Alex. > -Mensaje original- > De: Paul Hammant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Enviado el: miércoles 20 de febrero de 2002 18:51 > Para: Jakarta General List > Asunto: Apache Manual (was ApacheForge) > >

Re: ApacheForge

Vladimir Bossicard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I started my project, I took a deep deep look at several Apache projects: > > - how they wrote the build file > - how they organized the cvs tree > - where they placed the license > - how they named the packages > - how they wrote their website

Apache Manual (was ApacheForge)

Jon, Give us a TOC for what you think might be a good starting point. >That said, I will do my best to support someone who wants to create a manual >like that. If you hang around here and watch what happens and how people do >things and start to document it. Then I promise to review it and comme

Re: ApacheForge

on 2/20/02 9:22 AM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on 2/20/02 8:35 AM, "Vladimir Bossicard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But I haven't found an 'Apache' manual. > > Because it would take a HUGE amount of effort to create and maintain a > manual like that. The people who kno

Re: ApacheForge

"Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on 2/20/02 8:35 AM, "Vladimir Bossicard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Log4J was hosted on SourceForge >> POI was hosted on SourceForge >> BCEL was hosted on SouceForge >> >> My point is that you need 'a' SourceForge to start your project. > >

Re: ApacheForge

on 2/20/02 8:35 AM, "Vladimir Bossicard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I haven't found an 'Apache' manual. Because it would take a HUGE amount of effort to create and maintain a manual like that. The people who know the manual don't have the itch to create the manual because there is always p

Re: ApacheForge

on 2/20/02 8:35 AM, "Vladimir Bossicard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How can I volunteer since I don't have one single experience of the Apache > community? By simply stepping up and doing something. -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail

Re: ApacheForge

on 2/20/02 8:35 AM, "Vladimir Bossicard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Log4J was hosted on SourceForge > POI was hosted on SourceForge > BCEL was hosted on SouceForge > > My point is that you need 'a' SourceForge to start your project. No you don't. http://share.whichever.com It is just more '

Re: ApacheForge

ering. How can I volunteer since I don't have one single experience of the Apache community? > In case you didn't notice, mentoring/advising is a very time-intensive > role. Trying to build my own community right now and it's quite time-consuming, I agree. > What you say is pe

Re: ApacheForge

of developers/users anyway). > > If Apache wants to attract more projects/developers, I think that it can > use SourceForge's ressources (CVS...) and play more a mentoring/advisor > role. Using Jon's terms: thansk for volunteering. In case you didn't notice, mentoring/adv

Re: ApacheForge

I'm not sure I'm against this idea entirely... Just who is going to pay for it? VA has massive hardware behind Sourceforge (and its still down all the damn time). How do you do Apacheforge on far less boxen without whats left of VC money and probably an IPO? All of the other issues

Re: ApacheForge

> Apache is and has always been selective for a reason: we value > communities more than software and it takes a lot of energy to build a > community solid enough to build good enough software to pay back Apache > for the risk of diluting the brand each time a new effort is added. The question i

RE: ApacheForge

Paul, That helped me better understand your position. Let me see if I can clarify mine a little more. ApacheForge is essentially SourceForce with an Apache flavor. The purpose of ApacheForge would be to provide a nursery for starting projects licensed under the Apache License. I like the

Re: ApacheForge

Paul Hammant wrote: > Apache create ApacheForge. It has rules on IP and decision making, but > is completely open to entrants. -1 Apache is and has always been selective for a reason: we value communities more than software and it takes a lot of energy to build a community solid eno

Re: ApacheForge

Marc, Apache as is is an Ivory tower. Projects come here infrequently and Apache license is not a natural or obvious choice for peopel starting projects elsewhere (typically sourceforge). Perhaps think of it this way, Apache with in partnership with sourceforge mounts ApacheForge

RE: ApacheForge

Paul, I still don't get it. What you've essentially proposed is SourceForge running on Apache hardware and named ApacheForge. The idea being, I think, that having 'Apache' in the name lends it some credibility. But you've also removed all the normal barriers to entry

Re: ApacheForge

Marc, It's a marketing thing. This is more general than my AltRMI issue. I think ApacheForge has merit irrespective of what happens to AltRMI. - Paul >-1 > >Since the proposed ApacheForge would have no real connection with Apache >other than running on Apache hardware I don

Re: ApacheForge

Daniel, Yes I guess I would. Do you hold the purse strings for Apache.org ? - Paul >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Hammant writes: > >>I like the idea of a seperate, but endorsed ApacheForge site. It would >>give i) Encouragement ii) Independance but also

RE: ApacheForge

-1 Since the proposed ApacheForge would have no real connection with Apache other than running on Apache hardware I don't really see the value. How is this different from starting a project on SourceForge and building the community that way? There's nothing stopping anyone from

Re: ApacheForge

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Hammant writes: >I like the idea of a seperate, but endorsed ApacheForge site. It would >give i) Encouragement ii) Independance but also iii) Community. I think >it is a good and safe solution to what I think is the catch-22 situation >

ApacheForge

Folks, *Management summary* Apache create ApacheForge. It has rules on IP and decision making, but is completely open to entrants. *Long winded desc* The Free Software Foundation were peeved that SourceForge forked their site source internally. So upset in fact they mounted their own site