Re: Notification of a(nother) release vote for Tuscany

Rather than cross post which might get confusing if people replied to different lists, the intention here was to notify the IPMC that we were having a vote in Tuscany and to ask for their input (and hopefully votes) there. If we got three IPMC +1's on the project list I would think that was

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Release

and here is my enthusiastic ... +1 Dan Diephouse wrote: The Apache CXF team has cut a candidate release and published builds here: Binaries and Source Distributions: http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1/ Maven Repository

[jira] Created: (INCUBATOR-51) Digest mailing list (un)subscribe link don't work

Digest mailing list (un)subscribe link don't work - Key: INCUBATOR-51 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-51 Project: Incubator Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Bernd Fonde

Re: Re: Packaging for distribution - replacement for InstallShield functionality?

On 11/21/06, Andrew McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Note, however, that InstallBuilder itself is not a free or open source product. To prevent possible hair-splitting, this more correctly would have read 'InstallBuilder itself is not distributed under a free or open source license.' andre

Re: Notification of a(nother) release vote for Tuscany

Hi Jeremy, I'm not 100% sure of your goal of this message, but it seems to imply that you're planning on holding another vote on the incubator list once its done. Not sure if you know this or not - but I was informed at ApacheCon, that you don't really need to hold multiple votes (i.e. one for the

Re: Packaging for distribution - replacement for InstallShield functionality?

On 11/21/06, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I know that Apache projects like to release source code distributions but some projects also like to include binary (pre-built) distributions as well. In pre-Apache versions of UIMA, for instance, we used Installshield to create one-click (w

non-existant private list

The incubator info file [1] has a list of the ppmc / private mailing lists. Except we don't have a ppmc list for the Woden podling and when I tried out the woden-private list qmail told me: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) Should each podling have a ppmc list? I

Re: [VOTE] Graduate OFBiz Podling

On 11/20/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: or perhaps not: even if the formal name is Apache OFBiz, i suppose that the community could brand itself as 'Apache OFBiz - The Open For Business Project' (anyone see any issues with that?) Let the community decide, IMO. If they wa

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0.1

On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: robert burrell donkin wrote: > On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > anyone from maven around to explain the reasons behind this behaviour? >> >> I chatted with Brett about it a few days ago, and he said the problem is

Re: non-existant private list

On 11/20/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: it's probably a good idea to set one up before graduation. see http://www.apache.org/dev for information on setting up mailing lists. The argument for Woden, IIRC, was that it was under the WS PMC - so any 'private' matters need to b

Re: [VOTE] Graduate OFBiz Podling

On 11/20/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 20, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > My feedback (YMMV): > >> to be known as the "The Apache Open For Business Project" >> (also known as "Apache OFBiz") > > I suppose that the Board can make a determination, but I think tha

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0.1

Yeah. maybe. Anyway, it will be difficult to fix until the maven guys take a look at the bug. I've raised a JIRA for that: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-180 Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Dan Diephouse wrote: > Since these are generated files, must they have license headers? We > had a recent

RE: [VOTE] Graduate OFBiz Podling

My feedback (YMMV): > to be known as the "The Apache Open For Business Project" > (also known as "Apache OFBiz") I suppose that the Board can make a determination, but I think that Apache OFBiz is OK, whereas "The Apache Open For Business Project" might be confusing, e.g., would that be confused

missing announcement on announce mailing list

I sent a note to announce?apache.org a week ago to announce Tuscany's SDO Java M2 release. I have just got back the following message Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. I'm sorry, the list moderators for the announce list have failed to act on your

Re: missing announcement on announce mailing list

On 11/21/06, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, On 11/21/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > probably short of moderators. any member can volunteer to be added. I'd like to volunteer. Where do I sign up? cool :-) general infrastructure list - robert ---

[VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Release

The Apache CXF team has cut a candidate release and published builds here: Binaries and Source Distributions: http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1/ Maven Repository: http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1/reposito

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.1.0 (RC 2)

Howdy ActiveMQ Mentors... This is just a gentle reminder that this vote is still open and looking for at least 1 more incubator PMC binding vote to make it official. Please take a moment and review the release. Thanks! On 11/14/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey folks, I was ab

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ActiveMQ 4.1.0 (RC 2)

+1 :) Hiram Chirino wrote: Howdy ActiveMQ Mentors... This is just a gentle reminder that this vote is still open and looking for at least 1 more incubator PMC binding vote to make it official. Please take a moment and review the release. Thanks! On 11/14/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0.1

Since these are generated files, must they have license headers? We had a recent discussion on this on the legal-discuss list. To quote Roy: [1] We don't require headers on generated files because they are a pain in the butt to generate. Headers are not required to preserve copyright, so th

Release notes... [was Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0.1]

On 11/20/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: i strongly recommend adding RELEASE_NOTES. these are an important form of guerrilla advertising. yes, tools like maven can generate lots of documentation about the release but this doesn't replace a RELEASE_NOTES explaining the proje

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0.1

Yep, I think maven has transformed those POM during release/deploy process and removed Apache License headers. We just completed CXF release preparation and run into the same issue. Cheers, Bo Guillaume Nodet wrote: They were in svn before the release has been performed by the maven plugin.

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

William Good point, but since the trunk (from which "0.9.7-incubating- SNAPSHOT" nighties are being built) has advanced with potentially destabilizing changes since the branch point "0.9.6-incubating", it might be even more confusing for anyone who is relying on "0.9.7- incubating-SNAPSHOT"

Re: Extracting code from an incubation project

On 11/21/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, the question is simple: if the Abdera PPMC agrees to separate out the code and either the Jakarta or WS commons projects agree to accept it, what is the process we need to follow? Check out the thread with the subject "Graduating a part

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0.1

Guillaume Nodet wrote: Yeah. maybe. Anyway, it will be difficult to fix until the maven guys take a look at the bug. I've raised a JIRA for that: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-180 What you probably could do in the meantime is to stick the license comment inside of the project elemen

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote for > the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that > Robert mentions. > > We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating > release Remember version numbers

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

Hi Upayavira, On Nov 21, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Upayavira wrote: Patrick Linskey wrote: ...snipped... However, I *would* like clear guidance about what to do. Is this going to cause problems with incubator approval of the 0.9.6 vote that's currently running on the OpenJPA mailing list? In the

Extracting code from an incubation project

All, The Abdera project currently contains a bit of code that implements the IRI (RFC3987) specification in a way that could be easily extracted out into its own project. Recently I posed a question to the Jakarta Commons and WS Commons projects to see if there would be interest in pulling that c

RE: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

We're doing something pretty much the same; just not calling it RC-anything. What do you do when it comes time to vote? Clearly, you can't be voting on the RC build, as that's not the final build (the final build doesn't include RC in the name, does it?), and it's my understanding that only final

Re: [VOTE] Graduate OFBiz Podling

+1 from me. On 11/20/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/20/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 14, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > At this time you have, or will have, the required number of votes. > > We just > > need to see the Board r

Re: missing announcement on announce mailing list

Hi, On 11/21/06, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I sent a note to announce?apache.org a week ago to announce Tuscany's SDO Java M2 release. I have just got back the following message [...] but I don't know who the moderators are. Can someone help please? I'm now one of them. You c

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ 4.1.0 and we drop it in a directory called ActiveMQ-4.1.0-RC1 and then if during the vote something happens, we rebuild and 4.1.0 again and put it in directory called RC2 etc. So I would guess you guys just need to put out at 0.9.

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

I don't think so. Let the podling come up with what they call 0.9.6, let it give clear information to what that means, and the incubator PMC votes from there. This is getting counterproductive. geir Patrick Linskey wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

Sorry, I just don't like that changes to the bits based on an internal review should change the name of the release. Craig On Nov 21, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: To avoid those issue ActiveMQ tends to do a build of say ActiveMQ 4.1.0 and we drop it in a directory called ActiveMQ-4

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

Craig L Russell wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new re

Packaging for distribution - replacement for InstallShield functionality?

I know that Apache projects like to release source code distributions but some projects also like to include binary (pre-built) distributions as well. In pre-Apache versions of UIMA, for instance, we used Installshield to create one-click (well, maybe 3-click) installers for Windows and Linux

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0.1

On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: robert burrell donkin wrote: > On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Since these are generated files, must they have license headers? > > > no > > however, i think that running preprocessors against the source in the > re

[VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

For the purposes of closure, I am officially withdrawing this vote for the openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release while we make the changes that Robert mentions. We expect that a new vote will be started for the 0.9.6-incubating release tonight or tomorrow. Thanks very much to Robert for all

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6- incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new releases. Craig On

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0.1

robert burrell donkin wrote: On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since these are generated files, must they have license headers? no however, i think that running preprocessors against the source in the repository that strips license headers *is* an issue for me. IMO sour

Re: [VOTE] Graduate OFBiz Podling

On Nov 14, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: At this time you have, or will have, the required number of votes. We just need to see the Board resolution. I think we've finally settled on everything for the board resolution (see below). We appreciate everyone's patience on this and

RE: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

> > Hi, > > > > I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the > > 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be > > confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and > then publish > > another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate > aren't n

Re: non-existant private list

On 11/20/06, Jeremy Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The incubator info file [1] has a list of the ppmc / private mailing lists. Except we don't have a ppmc list for the Woden podling and when I tried out the woden-private list qmail told me: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that

Notification of a(nother) release vote for Tuscany

I have recently started a vote on tuscany-dev to approve the content of our incubator-M2 release for Java SCA. This note is to inform the IPMC of this vote and to invite any interested members to review the content. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200611.mbox/% [EMA

Re: [VOTE WITHDRAWN] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating release

Patrick Linskey wrote: Hi, I agree with Marc that we should continue to iterate on the 0.9.6-incubating release until we get it right. It would only be confusing if we actually publish the incubating release and then publish another 0.9.6. But iterations on the release candidate aren't new

Re: Extracting code from an incubation project

Thx. That's simple enough. Completely overlooked that thread somehow. - James Garrett Rooney wrote: > On 11/21/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So, the question is simple: if the Abdera PPMC agrees to separate out >> the code and either the Jakarta or WS commons projects agree

Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.0.1

On 11/20/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since these are generated files, must they have license headers? no however, i think that running preprocessors against the source in the repository that strips license headers *is* an issue for me. IMO source distributions should be simple

Digest-mailing-list (un)subscribe links

Hi, I had problems unsubscribing from the incubator general digest. The ready-to-go unsubscribe link from the mail footer has a doubled "-digest" which ezmlm doesn't like very much. Same problem seems to apply to the subscribe link. Posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED] probably is not a good idea either.

Re: Including snapshot dependencies from other ASF projects

On 11/17/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Of course, svn is not an ASF project so they don't (have any reason to) follow our tar - vote - distribute rules. FWIW, correct - but - Subversion largely follows the ASF release rules (releases get at least 3 +1s before being posted)