> The conversation on OpenJPA has been quiet for about a week
Reminder for those who want to review:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200603.mbox/%3c7D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> so I was wondering if there are outstanding issues that need
> to be resolved or this could be move
The conversation on OpenJPA has been quiet for about a week so I was wondering
if there are outstanding issues that need to be resolved or this could be moved
to a vote to accept the project and what the next steps are. I'm kind of
excited to get it going.
Geir, oh mighty mentor from the moun
On 3/16/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> >
> > > James Strachan wrote:
> > > > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > > > I know for a fact that WADI, ActiveIO and Trifork guys have
> > > > > been talking abou
On Mar 16, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Mads Toftum wrote:
-- ensure that the quarterly report is provided
to the Incubator PMC
+1 - although I wonder if it would be worth letting new projects
report
each month for the first 3 months?
+1 good idea
-dain
-
On 3/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> > James Strachan wrote:
> > > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > > I know for a fact that WADI, ActiveIO and Trifork guys have
> > > > been talking about coming up with a single framework for IO.
> > > > James hinted in
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > I know for a fact that WADI, ActiveIO and Trifork guys have
> > > been talking about coming up with a single framework for IO.
> > > James hinted in a prev message and there have been some
> > > references in emails o
On 3/16/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is a good point - a project that can't raise the interest
> of more than one member is likely to struggle with generating enough
> interest and attracting enough of a community in the future.
Sure - but there's a marked difference b
On 3/16/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 - although I wonder if it would be worth letting new projects report
> each month for the first 3 months?
++1. This follows the Board's treatment of new TLPs so that we can
ensure the start-up goes smoothly. -- justin
-
Sorry 'bout that. I had done the proper thing and created an XML
file and generated the HTML and committed both yesterday, but I had
not yet updated the site where a hand-made HTML file had been put
erroneously. Thanks for taking care of it, and I apologize for the
inconvenience.
Mads Toftum wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:31:05AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> Considering the number of proposals coming at the incubator
>> these days, and the concerns raised about that fact, perhaps
>> needing multiple ASF people with enthusiasm about each is
>> precisely a rea
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:31:05AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> Considering the number of proposals coming at the incubator
> these days, and the concerns raised about that fact, perhaps
> needing multiple ASF people with enthusiasm about each is
> precisely a reasonable governor.
> -
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:49:13PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> -- We should require 3+ Mentors for each project
> -- Upon acceptance, we should establish the initial
> PPMC as consisting of the Mentors.
> -- Upon project acceptance, we should immediately
> create the [EMAIL PROTEC
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I updated cayenne's status page and got an error regarding
>>projects/lucene.net.html when I did 'svn up' on people.apache.org:
>>
>> -bash-2.05b$ svn up
>> Uprojects/cayenne.html
>> svn: Failed to add fi
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> I actually tend to agree with Ken on these things
> Meritocracy *at the ASF* is a significant point.
And so staying in the Incubator long enough for people to have a sense of
confidence regarding the community makes sense to me. As I see it, moving a
project before having
On 3/16/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I updated cayenne's status page and got an error regarding
> projects/lucene.net.html when I did 'svn up' on people.apache.org:
>
>-bash-2.05b$ svn up
>Uprojects/cayenne.html
>svn: Failed to add file 'projects/lucene.net.html
I updated cayenne's status page and got an error regarding
projects/lucene.net.html when I did 'svn up' on people.apache.org:
-bash-2.05b$ svn up
Uprojects/cayenne.html
svn: Failed to add file 'projects/lucene.net.html': object of the
same name already exists
projects/lucene.net.html
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
If the ActiveMQ / ServiceMix community do decide to go under some
other TLP, I'm sure it would not take long for the active
participants of the community to asked to Join the TLP's PMC.
I would certainly hope that the
James Strachan wrote:
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan/James dredged up a thought process which i want to ask all of you
about.
For a concrete example, I know for a fact that WADI, ActiveIO and
Trifork guys have been talking about coming up with a single framework
This is my understanding as well and what was communicated to me by
Incubator PMC people.
Regards,
Alan
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for
ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is in Geronimo or
not.
Basically if one nee
Hola,
I actually tend to agree with Ken on these things, and so my answer to
both of Alan's scenarios would be that yes, it's fair for the old
committer to not automatically get commit privileges or be on the PMC.
A healthy community would instantly welcome back the hypothetical
person who spent y
On 3/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > Ken wrote:
> > > I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
> > > has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
>
> > my first pass definition is quite different:
>
One of my pet peeves was that there was little or no discussion on
many aspects of the proposals in the Geronimo dev list before the pmc
decided to sponsor it. Am just making sure there are no unknowns with
my incubator pmc hat on. I'd like to thank James and Alan for taking
the time to answer all
awesome! glad to hear that.
-- dims
On 3/16/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alan/James dredged up a thought process which i want to ask all of you
> about.
> >
> > For a concrete example, I know for a fact that WADI, Ac
nope. just a review.
On 3/16/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
> > component of AMQ" as well?
>
> Are you looking for obstacles?
> -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
> component of AMQ" as well?
Are you looking for obstacles?
- --
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinioni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> Do these really have to be "Apache" credits accumulated?
How do the people at Apache get to see it otherwise?
I've pointed out what I think may be a problem. Having
done so, I'm content to have the legacy commit inheritan
On 3/16/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > I don't think there is such a restriction. Where did you come across
> > that? in other words, who said that?
> >
> > "we are apparently not allowed to use the incubati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[restoring the CC list since this definitely applies to the
people on those lists]
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> I don't think there is such a restriction. Where did you come across
> that? in other words, who said that?
>
> "we are apparently not allowe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> Note that we are apparently not allowed to use the incubating ActiveMQ
> inside Geronimo until it leaves incubation
>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-servicemix-dev/200602.mbox/browser
Due to the way mod_mbo
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Alan/James dredged up a thought process which i want to ask all of you
> about.
>
> For a concrete example, I know for a fact that WADI, ActiveIO and
> Trifork guys have been talking about coming up with a single framework
> for IO. James
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>
> I have another question: If that guy finds some time for working on
> the project again and asks for Karma: Do you indeed believe the
> project wouldn't be ready to vote him in as a committer?
But turn it around as well. C
I'll let Noel reply back to this, just to be sure :)
On 3/16/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for
> > ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is
Alan/James dredged up a thought process which i want to ask all of you about.
For a concrete example, I know for a fact that WADI, ActiveIO and
Trifork guys have been talking about coming up with a single framework
for IO. James hinted in a prev message and there have been some
references in email
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for
> ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is in Geronimo or
> not.
Basically if one needs servicemix, they get a whole package that has
> incubating all over
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
> component of AMQ" as well?
Yes
Both those codebases sprang out of the ActiveMQ code (developed by a subset
of the ActiveMQ committers) but they turned out to be way too sm
I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for
ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is in Geronimo or
not.
Basically if one needs servicemix, they get a whole package that has
incubating all over it. Same with derby, if someone needed derby they
won't download G
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think there is such a restriction. Where did you come across
> that? in other words, who said that?
>
> "we are apparently not allowed to use the incubating ActiveMQ"
See this thread...
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/g
How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
component of AMQ" as well?
On 3/16/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> - The presence of Acti
I don't think there is such a restriction. Where did you come across
that? in other words, who said that?
"we are apparently not allowed to use the incubating ActiveMQ"
thanks,
dims
On 3/16/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On 3/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
> > I believe that merging ActiveMQ and Servicemix into Geronimo
> > community and PMC is easier than most cases since there are
> > all ready several active ActiveMQ/ServiceMix commiters thar
> > are Geronimo PMC mem
On 3/16/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm convinced - this definitely seems like a very good reason to have
> inactive committers following an incubated project through to either
> TLP stage, or into another TLP, but not being on the PMC. I'd be less
> convinced on a project that w
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do these really have to be "Apache" credits accumulated? Let's do a
hypothetical situation. Let's say that some guy puts in a few years of
his life into a CodeHaus project. Then, he has a kid. At that time the
p
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do these really have to be "Apache" credits accumulated? Let's do a
> hypothetical situation. Let's say that some guy puts in a few years of
> his life into a CodeHaus project. Then, he has a kid. At that time the
> project moves to ASF
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting reply - I'd been assuming that when an incubatee graduates
> >> into an existing project, it's PPMC automati
44 matches
Mail list logo
