Hi Jeremy, Here is a problem that most of us are facing with the Trunk and is hindering us to effectively contribute to the trunk. I see there is one solution that has been proposed to making this simpler with some compromises. If this is not agreeable what is the alternative for those of us who are waiting for a solution to this. Whats the simple way for any of us - including somebody getting in afresh - to quickly jump in and start contributing without having to worry about the build intricacies. Should we consider Bert's suggestion?
Theres been may a time when you have helped us out of various technical difficulties. Here is yet another time I request for help from you for a way out of this. Thanks - Venkat On 3/29/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dims, Sorry, I can't speak on behalf of Jim or Jeremy. As for me, this is only the second time I have voted -1, the other one being the one on interfaced based models, which has been withdrawn since then. On this particular vote, I am ok to go with -0, it was a misunderstaning on my part on how voting worked. I thought, the rule was there should be more +1s than -1s and at least three +1s. As Jim mentioned in one of the previous emails, there is a fundamental difference that has been evolving between two groups of people, in terms of what technical direction we should take. There have been laudable efforts from both sides (especially from the likes of Raymond, Sebastien, Simon, Jim and Jeremy) to reconcile the differences and move on. However, the plain fact is that those diffeerences have not been resolved yet and I am not sure whether they would, given they are quite fundamental. On your point on projects being thrown out of the incubator, I wouldn't want that to happen to Tuscany. Lot of people have put in a lot of effort on this. I am willing to keep the discussions going. At the end of the day, if I personally can't resolve the technical differences, I would maintain my dignity and step out of the way and let the community carry on. However, that would be a last resort for me, I would continue to work with the guys here and try to reconcile the differences. On your point on the "Be Nice" vote, I have been thinking hard on the actual motivation of that vote. I don't think anyone has been disrespectful to anyone on the list so far. We have had our differences, and we have tried to discuss them as grown up individuals. Hence, I didn't really understand the purpose of that vote. Ta Meeraj ________________________________ From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 5:09 AM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together Meeraj, well go over the archives and count how many times you, jim and jeremy have -1'ed something. The correct vote for "I am happy to go with the majority view, if that is what the community wants." is -0 *NOT* -1. When you do a -1 you are supposed to work hard to come up with a refined proposal that takes in your viewpoint or help come up with a proposal that evertone can rally around. I see no effort in consensus building in any of the threads i reviewed after a -1. This is an open source project, you can have the best goddamn architecture in the whole wide world. If there is no community to back the work. It will get thrown out of the incubator. Sorry, that's the way Apache works. Incubator is not only for legal purposes but also to help build communities. This is not the way an open source project should work. Forget about incubator projects, we have closed Top level project (example Avalon) too because everyone was at cross purposes and no one was cooperating with any one else. Yes, a few of the people who started the fracas did say exactly what you said.."I disagree fundamnetally from a technical perspective". See this email and check if it is the same situation you all are in. Finally did the three of you VOTE in the "Be Nice" thread? That just tells me a lot of things. thanks, dims [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/avalon-dev/200211.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/28/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dims, > > I don't think there is a stream of -1s. This is an issue on which, unfortunately, I disagree fundamnetally from a technical perspective, with the percieved majority view. It will be hypocritical of me to +1, if I don't agree with it. > > However, I am happy to go with the majority view, if that is what the community wants. > > Ta > Meeraj > > ________________________________ > > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wed 3/28/2007 11:24 PM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Use single version for all Java/SCA modules and enable building all modules together > > > > Jim, Meeraj, > > If the stream of -1's contnue, am afraid there isn't going to be a > single release at all. > > thx, > dims > > On 3/28/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:51 AM, ant elder wrote: > > > > > Here's the vote on this I said [1] I'd start to get closure on this > > > issue. > > > > > > The proposal is to have top-level pom for the Java SCA project that > > > enables > > > building all the modules together - kernel, services, runtimes, > > > extensions > > > etc, and for that to work all those modules need to use the same > > > version > > > name. > > > > > > Here's my +1. > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/ > > > msg16024.html > > > > > > > > There has been no proposal for how to resolve the issue about > > building extensions using multiple versions of kernel and how modules > > on different release schedules requiring different levels of kernel > > or plugins will be handled. > > > > Until we can come up with a solution for these issues, I feel I have > > to vote against the proposal. > > > > -1 > > > > Jim > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. > > > > > ***************************************************** > > You can find us at www.voca.com > > ***************************************************** > This communication is confidential and intended for > the exclusive use of the addressee only. You should > not disclose its contents to any other person. > If you are not the intended recipient please notify > the sender named above immediately. > > Registered in England, No 1023742, > Registered Office: Voca Limited > Drake House, Three Rivers Court, > Homestead Road, Rickmansworth, > Hertfordshire, WD3 1FX. United Kingdom > > VAT No. 226 6112 87 > > > This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
