On 20/01/15 17:59, Reto Gmür wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
And what's so bad about the incubator? You could (maybe) later on come
to Commons.
That's exactly what clerezza did, we incubated 2009 and now propose a
generalized version of our RDF API as Apache comm
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> > There are several ASF projects in the
> > RDF space. They have been through the incubator. Please do talk to
> those
> > projects if you have concerns.
>
> I am sorry - but how are those projects relevant in this case?
>
> And what's so
2015-01-20 16:09 GMT+01:00 Sergio Fernández :
> Hi,
>
> On 20/01/15 15:41, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> Torsten -- interesting that graduation could be to "commons" - has that
>> happened before?
>>
>
> It already happened, yes:
>
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.
> general
> As I see it, the Apache Commons has one partcular way of working. Every
> Apache project has its own unique ways of working within the Apache way.
>From my ASF experience (and that's shockingly 12+ years now) the
"implementation" of Apache way is not that very different across
projects. It vari
Hi,
On 20/01/15 15:41, Andy Seaborne wrote:
Torsten -- interesting that graduation could be to "commons" - has that
happened before?
It already happened, yes:
http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general+vote+graduate+subproject+commons
I would like to see Apache Common
It might be my fault for misrepresenting "The Commons-RDF community" -
personally I am fairly fresh to the Apache (Oct 2014). The other, core
committers involved in Commons-RDF are seasoned Apache folks. I've
just tried to be a mediator.. My fault.
I think the community around commons-rdf is alre
On 20/01/15 14:08, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 20/01/2015 13:07, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
community not really understanding
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 20/01/2015 13:07, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
>>> destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
>>> commun
> Agree that maybe the the Incubator with a projected path to the
> Commons could be a workable middle ground while Commons-RDF is still
> "incubating" code-wise (but not community or Apache Way-wise).
To me it comes across as if community/ASF wise is the more important
part. This is really not me
> know that for many "email list"
> == "community" == "Apache project". But Apache Commons is special. As
> pointed out - not everyone here will be involved with all Commons
> components.
Yet we consider this as one community that has cross pollination and
shared responsibilities.
> As Peter poi
On 20/01/2015 13:07, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
>> destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
>> community not really understanding how the ASF works.
>
> I am d
Agree that maybe the the Incubator with a projected path to the
Commons could be a workable middle ground while Commons-RDF is still
"incubating" code-wise (but not community or Apache Way-wise).
No earlier project has gone through this route
(https://incubator.apache.org/projects/ ) - this would
> There are several ASF projects in the
> RDF space. They have been through the incubator. Please do talk to those
> projects if you have concerns.
I am sorry - but how are those projects relevant in this case?
And what's so bad about the incubator? You could (maybe) later on come
to Commons.
Something like https://about.gitlab.com/ installed at Apache
infrastructure would be a revolution.
Meanwhile we are stuck with mailing lists (with a subscription and
archive interface from 1995) - can we not just tweak that capability
by at least having a separate list? I know that for many "email
On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
community not really understanding how the ASF works.
I am disappointed by that comment. There are several ASF pr
Hi Peter,
Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 20 January 2015 at 05:44, Jörg Schaible wrote:
[snip]
>> Yes, the shared resources are part of the Apache Commons community. It
>> was especially built to increase the responsibility of all committers for
>> all components. Jakarta had a long history of died
> Members of the Commons community are expected to be subscribed to the
> dev mailing list. The impression I get from reading these messages is
> that the RDF community has little to no interest in interacting with the
> Commons community.
>
> At this point it looks to me like the incubator would b
On 20/01/2015 09:29, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been reading the different threads where this issue has been
> discussed.
>
> First, I'd like to say from Commons RDF we do not want to open the
> discussion of sub-project. We all are quite experienced at the ASF to
> know how bad t
> But there will me much more in terms of discussion. That's why a TLP does
> make any
> sense for me.
TLP just because of a noisy API discussion - that's just not how it works.
I don't mind reading that discussion, or just deleting it, or creating a filter.
> I've subscribed to
> dev@commons.a
Hi all,
I've been reading the different threads where this issue has been discussed.
First, I'd like to say from Commons RDF we do not want to open the
discussion of sub-project. We all are quite experienced at the ASF to
know how bad that could be. And we are happy to be a regular component.
On 20/01/2015 00:05, Peter Ansell wrote:
> The tendency so far has been, since some of us are not paid
> specifically to work on the relevant code, that once pull requests are
> suggested, the discussion gets going for a few days and then falls
> off. And eventually, once the API is stable it will
Hello Peter,
2015-01-20 1:05 GMT+01:00 Peter Ansell :
> On 20 January 2015 at 05:44, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> > Hi Gilles,
> >
> > Gilles wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>> On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary
On 20 January 2015 at 05:44, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
>
>> There is the build system for some, for some it's the people - be it
>> just for oversight. And then there is the PMC and the board reports.
>
>
> Of course, there are some _administrative_ connections; it's very
> helpful to have a home for projects that by themselves wouldn't have
> the resour
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:34:23 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
...and it's still the term we are using:
http://commons.apache.org/components.html
You miss my point(s): It's totally clear what a component is,
as defined by "Commons". The issue is how it relates to the
"Commons project" management.
>> ...and it's still the term we are using:
>>
>> http://commons.apache.org/components.html
>
> You miss my point(s): It's totally clear what a component is,
> as defined by "Commons". The issue is how it relates to the
> "Commons project" management.
That does not sound like "totally clear" to me
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Gilles wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Ste
On 1/19/15 11:21 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:53:35 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> Words without semantics...
>>
>> ...and it's still the term we are using:
>>
>> http://commons.apache.org/components.html
>
> You miss my point(s): It's totally clear what a component is,
> as defined
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
wrote:
> On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> I wonder how Apache DS deals with this. It's a TLP with lots of jars too.
>
Or Maven and Ant... I can't imagine there is a special ML for one 'special'
jar.
Gary
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Gilles
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon,
I wonder how Apache DS deals with this. It's a TLP with lots of jars too.
Gary
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:53:35 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>> Words without semantics...
>>>
>>
>> ...and it's still the term we are using:
>>
>> http://commons.apache
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:53:35 +0100, Torsten Curdt wrote:
Words without semantics...
...and it's still the term we are using:
http://commons.apache.org/components.html
You miss my point(s): It's totally clear what a component is,
as defined by "Commons". The issue is how it relates to the
"Co
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:50:52 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>
> Words without semantics...
...and it's still the term we are using:
http://commons.apache.org/components.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apach
On 1/19/15 10:33 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>> > Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>>> >
>>> >> Now the question is: do we want
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:15:42 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz
wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>
>> Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the
Commons RDF
>> project?
>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
> >
> >> Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the Commons RDF
> >> project?
> > I don't think we should make an exception. Settin
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:40:54 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the
Commons RDF
project?
I don't think we should make an exception. Setting up mail filters
On 1/19/15 7:51 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>
>> Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the Commons RDF
>> project?
> I don't think we should make an exception. Setting up mail filters isn't
> that difficult.
+1
We don't have "subpr
Le 19/01/2015 15:32, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
> Now the question is: do we want to make an exception for the Commons RDF
> project?
I don't think we should make an exception. Setting up mail filters isn't
that difficult.
Emmanuel Bourg
-
Hi all,
following up the discussion at [1] the folks from git github commons RDF
project [2] would like to join the Apache Commons Project, but they ask us
to create a separate mailing list for this component. Gilles has already
brought up this topic [3] and my feeling is, that we in general don't
41 matches
Mail list logo
