Hello folks,
This is what i have been thinking about. For long.
"Committership in specified duration".
For example, "Log4XXX" (New Project) needs some
committers in order to improve the quality of the
codebases rapidly and reliably, it seems.
(Patching, patching ... would dampen developers/con
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >> So, like I said, I clearly missed what you suggested as fixes to the
> >> problems that you perceive. While I'm sure that this discussion belongs
> >> on the incubator list, rather than here, I have a strong suspicion that
> >> you're going to resp
Anou,
In the two cases of jUDDI and Depot you mentioned, I checked the STATUS file
and saw that they are waiting on Jira, so I went ahead and created them.
For future reference, such requests should normally come from the (P)PMC
responsible for the project.
Please let the people involved in those
>> So, like I said, I clearly missed what you suggested as fixes to the
>> problems that you perceive. While I'm sure that this discussion belongs
>> on the incubator list, rather than here, I have a strong suspicion that
>> you're going to respond with a note to the effect that you've already
>> b
Hi guys,
Can we go back to friendly replies again?
The thread 'Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers'
is starting to sound a lot more hostile that it has to be.
Sander
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
>
>> Incubation is not intended to be difficult. The Incubator's raison d'être
>> is to make sure that projects are imported, while ensuring that important
>> details have been observed.
>
> Yes, I can see this. Also, I am sure that such projects can also choose
> another
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> Once the legal aspects are resolved, why adopt such a radical
> position? Is it warranted?
the resolution of the legal aspects is done by the incubator.
why don't restaurants perform their own health inspections?
it's not a radical position. the incubator exists, in part,
t
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
> > Incubation is not intended to be difficult. The Incubator's raison
d'être
> > is to make sure that projects are imported, while ensuring that
important
> > details have been observed.
> Yes, I can see this. Also, I am sure that such projects can also choose
> another
> Incubation is not intended to be difficult. The Incubator's raison d'être
> is to make sure that projects are imported, while ensuring that important
> details have been observed.
Yes, I can see this. Also, I am sure that such projects can also choose
another way if there are appropriate "Less
> The stated purpose of the Logging Services project is the inclusion of
> projects such as log4net, log4php, log4cpp or log4cxx.
Sounds great. Wonderful. That's exactly the kind of thing we all want to
see happen.
> These projects already are open sourced, some even under the Apache
license.
>
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> All the developers who have expressed an opinion on the matter so far
> were inclined to have separate repositories with separate access
> rights. The exact internal organization of the Logging Services is
> something that should be left for the Logging Services project to
> de
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
...
Once the legal aspects are resolved, why adopt such a radical
position?
Once legal aspects are resolved, the infrastructure is set up and the
community works you are out of the Incubator anyhow.
The "radical position" is just about getting these done no more, no less.
Pleas
At 09:19 AM 1/12/2004 -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>>> From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
>>>to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
>>
>>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
>>http://incuba
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>>> From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
>>>to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
>>
>>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
>>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#can_Incubation_be_skipped
>>http:/
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 11:49 AM 1/12/2004 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
...
From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
http://in
At 11:49 AM 1/12/2004 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
...
From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
http://incubator.apache.org/
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> What does it mean exactly for log4net to come through the Incubator?
> From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
> to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
code that has existed outside the asf can *only* enter the asf
through the incubator
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
The exact internal organization of the Logging Services is
something that should be left for the Logging Services project to
decide.
...
Whether LS becomes a single integrated community cannot be imposed
from above. The project needs time to evolve naturally.
Nobody ever said or
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
...
From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#can_Incubation_be_skipped
http://incubator.apac
At 01:18 AM 1/11/2004 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > Also - is log4net being directly imported or is it going through the
> > > incubator? My understanding would be the latter given it's bringing
> > > new developers in, but my guess would be that it would be fairly
> > > simple if the licen
20 matches
Mail list logo
