What about maintaining both as branches of the CeltiXFire project?
- Brett
On 01/07/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 - The XFire community will definitely still need the ability to make
releases after we graduate. As you said, there are big incompatabile
changes (I think of this
+1 - The XFire community will definitely still need the ability to make
releases after we graduate. As you said, there are big incompatabile
changes (I think of this as like a 2.0) and its a merge, so we can't
leave existing users in the dust.
- Dan
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Could you please e
Hi Jim and Dan,
Yes, Celtix team might have do point releases as well.
- Adi
On 6/30/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, up until the podling can make releases, the old
"external" projects still can do releases. However,
it's expected that once the podling starts releases,
that t
I too like Heraldry (why exactly dont folks want to use it?)
But if we must rename it, a suggestion is 3i (interoperable Internet
identity).
=Drummond
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Recordon, David
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 1:44 AM
To: ge
Could you please explain the rational behind that ?
When merging two existing code bases, the two community will
certainly focus on the merge, but existing users should not be
left without any support. Even when the podling start
release something, there are big changes that the new project
will
Yes, up until the podling can make releases, the old
"external" projects still can do releases. However,
it's expected that once the podling starts releases,
that the 2 external ones shut down.
On Jun 30, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
Hi Jim,
Even once we're in the incubator the XFire
Erik Abele wrote:
On 30.06.2006, at 15:22, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/30/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing that bothers me is that there is a very small handful of ASF
people
(committers and members) participating in standards e
On 30.06.2006, at 15:22, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/30/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing that bothers me is that there is a very small handful of
ASF
people
(committers and members) participating in standards efforts.
perhaps o
robert burrell donkin wrote:
pages tend to be collected within directories so probably
www.apache.org/dev/standards.html would be a better location but sounds
good.
/dev/standards/index.html, and then individual ietf.html, jsr.html, w3c.html?
That works.
knowing which projects are (reference
(Hurray! Hurray! Hurray!)
Heya gang,
just went to read through a bunch of the new incubator site. I think y'all did
an amazing job this week; things are so much clearer now. Many thanks! (I'm
sure that's on behalf of everyone 'round here as well as future podlings)
cheers,
Leo
PS: now that
In the spirit of bob blakely¹s presentation at catalyst, how about
sibyl or sibyllic
As in an oracle?
=peterd
On 6/30/2006 4:43 AM, "Recordon, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason we've leaned against naming it after a specific technology is that
> we don't want the name to limit
On 6/30/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 6/30/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> One thing that bothers me is that there is a very small handful of ASF
>> people
>> (committers and members) participating in standards ef
Hi Jim,
Even once we're in the incubator the XFire project will still have to do
releases. We have a 1.2 release in progress and will be doing bug fix
releases as well. Additionally, I would imagine IONA might want to
issue a bug fix release at some point for Celtix. I can't really comment
on
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/30/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing that bothers me is that there is a very small handful of ASF
people
(committers and members) participating in standards efforts.
perhaps one way to reduce the friction would be for somene to ad
We've handled these types of things before, for example
with SpamAssassin and Cayenne, when external codebases
were being folded into the incubator. What they've done
is mention on the old sites that the projects are
now ASF Incubator projects, etc... The intent is that
until the code has been rel
Robert +1
I think also, given that I understand that the Celtix and XFire
projects will remain alive outside, at least for the initial future,
that it would help reduce confusion to have a separate and distinct
name for the Apache project.
Paul
On 6/30/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On 6/21/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/21/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently the plan is to leave both the old websites & docs will at the
> old locations. And XFire will be making release until Celtixfire
> releases a .0 release. I think Celtix will
> >From conversations at ApacheCon, and gentle nudging at dinner last night =
> from Danese Cooper, it sounds like we should come up with a better name. =
> The current thought is "Ibid". So it works in "ID" and has a good =
> geeky literary reference.
Hmm. I rather think it's one of the better
On 6/30/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/29/06, Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sophitia que wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't think it's unreasonable that we expect proposing parties to at
> > least browse and read parts of the incubator web site prior to a
> > subm
On 6/29/06, Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sophitia que wrote:
[...]
> I don't think it's unreasonable that we expect proposing parties to at
> least browse and read parts of the incubator web site prior to a
> submission. Our obligation, as the incubator, would be to 1) ensure
that
>
On 6/29/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I will be submitting a proposal soon, and have followed the form of the
most recent submissions. Will
this discussion have material impact on the form of a submission in the
next few weeks?
of course :-)
the mailing lists are the primary
The reason we've leaned against naming it after a specific technology is that
we don't want the name to limit the project as it moves forward. While the
main focus certainly is around OpenID today, the Identity Provider component
certainly could support many protocols in the future.
Two other
+1 (non-binding)
...ant
On 6/27/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 from me.
On 6/26/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Synapse incubator would like to ask the Incubator PMC to
> > release the
> > Synapse project into the Apache Web Services PMC. Synapse h
On 6/29/06, sophitia que <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I don't necessarily disagree with this guideline it doesn't
> seem that it belongs here. Until a project is accepted no formal
> relationship between the proposer and the ASF exists (right?), so
> this guideline cannot be enforced or ev
On 6/30/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing that bothers me is that there is a very small handful of ASF
people
(committers and members) participating in standards efforts. Once you
have
created the implementation of something novel, there are people in both
the
IETF
25 matches
Mail list logo
