On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 11:20 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> > There is a pretty nice proposal on
> > http://people.apache.org/~henkp/trust/, however this will again take a
> > piece of "freedom of doing software at Apache" away and introduce some
> > administrativ
+1
Good work.
Thomas
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, J?rg Reiher wrote:
Hello,
the community has approved a release of apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating and
apache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating.
Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy we would now like to
request the appro
On 03/10/2008, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Moved to the thread it belongs in ...
> >
> > Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >> > Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Better a bad decision
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moved to the thread it belongs in ...
>
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> > Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Better a bad decision than no decision, otherwise, soon, nobody will
vote anymore...
>>> Not
Hi to all;
I have posted a proposal about the project, named OpenWebBeans.
It is in the WIKI, its address is
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenWebBeansProposal
Thanks for advance;
Gurkan Erdogdu
- Original Message
From: Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: general@incubator.apach
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't need for you to implement any "policy" other than the requirement
> for users to approve authorized signing keys. You simply need to implement
> artifact signing and mandatory authorization, which is why I'v
On 03/10/2008, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >We don't have to. We can simply mandate that every ASF project sign
> their
> >artifacts and charge the Maven PMC with enforcing it.
>
>
> And are you going to lobby FireFox and Microsoft to enforce in their
> browsers?
Microsoft alr
>We don't have to. We can simply mandate that every ASF project sign
their
>artifacts and charge the Maven PMC with enforcing it.
And are you going to lobby FireFox and Microsoft to enforce in their
browsers? Seriously why is this Maven's problem simply because it
downloads it when you can't enf
+1
Niall
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please vote on accepting Droids into incubation.
>
> The proposal can be found at:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DroidsProposal
>
> The text of the proposal
>
> = Droids, an intelligent standalone robot f
On Oct 3, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1
sounds pretty interesting.
why not posting a proposal like:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal
to our wiki.
You can count me in for being a mentor/champion, since I am a member
of the ASF
Cool. You can count me in a
On 3-Oct-08, at 12:31 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We don't need for you to implement any "policy" other than the
requirement for users to approve authorized signing keys. You
simply need to implement artifact signing and mandatory
authorization, w
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> > Did you not see what just happened to Redhat with respect to
>> > Fedora? They take artifact security seriously. For a long time,
>> > it has appeared that Maven d
+1
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Incubator
> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2008 4:00:41 PM
> Subject: [Vote] accept Droids into incubation
>
> Please vote on accepting Droids into
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 10:08 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTEC
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
>>> Does the ASF "endorse" these releases, and what does that endorsement mean?
>
>> yes...
>
> You are talking about a legal licensing matter, whereas discussion during the
> setup and formation of the Incubator
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > We don't need for you to implement any "policy" other than the
> > requirement for users to approve authorized signing keys. You
> > simply need to implement artifact signing and mandatory
> > authorization, which is why I've moved this to the th
On 3-Oct-08, at 10:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Moved to the thread it belongs in ...
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Better a bad decision than no decision, otherwise, soon, nobody
will
vote anymore...
Not really. Consider that there appears to be
Hiram wrote:
> a source build like Apache ServiceMix depends on hundreds of
> third party dependencies.. so an end user would need to end up
> trusting LOTs different signatures to get ServiceMix to build.
> It would be easier if the end user could just trust the Apache source
> distro and also tr
Hi Matthias;
Thanks for answering and becoming champion. I will create a proposal about the
implementation and send it here.
Gurkan
- Original Message
From: Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2008 5:51:03 PM
Subject: Re:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> There is a pretty nice proposal on
> http://people.apache.org/~henkp/trust/, however this will again take a
> piece of "freedom of doing software at Apache" away and introduce some
> administrative overhead that all projects must implement and manage.
But, as you s
> So the first thing that happens post graduation is that you piss off the
> entire community by breaking all backwords compatibility by changing all
> the package names? Ick. Not a good "first experience" once out of the
> incubator.
We (JSPWiki) will do this by taking advantage of the pack
> The sources you build come either from svn or from a signed
> release package.
We are concerned only with the latter, not what people do with code taken
directly from our SVN repository.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-
Brett Porter wrote:
> Currently, it has checking turned on by default, but that isn't going to
be
> a reasonable setting for some releases to come until the signatures in the
> repository are cleaned up.
Why not enforce checking, but provide the ability for users to manually
approve unsigned arti
> Something else that needs to be considered is what happens if
> someone's private key in the web of trust gets compromised?
Did you see what happened with Fedora last week (or two weeks ago at this
point)? They had to close down their repository system and re-issue new,
re-signed, artifacts.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the first thing that happens post graduation is that you piss off the
> entire community by breaking all backwords compatibility by changing all
> the package names? Ick. Not a good "first experience" once out of the
>
Moved to the thread it belongs in ...
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>> Better a bad decision than no decision, otherwise, soon, nobody will
>>> vote anymore...
>> Not really. Consider that there appears to be a clear consensus
>> that if Maven were to
+1
sounds pretty interesting.
why not posting a proposal like:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal
to our wiki.
You can count me in for being a mentor/champion, since I am a member of the ASF
-M
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi to all;
So the first thing that happens post graduation is that you piss off the
entire community by breaking all backwords compatibility by changing all
the package names? Ick. Not a good "first experience" once out of the
incubator.
We put "incubator" in all the artifact names.IMO, that is en
What about allowing podlings to do release without using the
org.apache.* packages or the apache brand anywhere in the release ?
These would be just plain Apache Licensed releases without any ties to
the Apache brand. Such releases, not endorsed by the ASF could be
synced to the central repo witho
Hi to all;
My name is Gurkan Erdogdu. I have been implementing the Web Beans Specification
- JSR-299, EDR-1. 90% of the specification code is completed with its unit
tests. I want to denote my working for the Apache Foundation, because I am the
believer of the open source. As an open source dev
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Do people think that we shouldn't make such a distinction, or that we
> should perhaps explicitly consider "community quality" as a release
> criteria?
>
Getting releases out of the incubator is difficult and subjective en
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...Upayavira made a good point about the difference between endorsing a
> release and endorsing a project. The way I see it, the ASF endorses a
> release when the binding release vote passes. A project is endorsed
> when it
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I agree, I still feel, that you are doctoring on the symptoms
> (release distribution channels) and not the cause.
Thus my conclusion that there seems to be a deeper disagreement on the
nature of incuba
On 2-Oct-08, at 9:19 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Better a bad decision than no decision, otherwise, soon, nobody will
vote anymore...
Not really. Consider that there appears to be a clear consensus
that if
Maven were to fix the download situation, requiring that u
Why not leave all licenses as separate files but put them in a subfolder called
"licenses"?
That would serve both of you.
This is clearly my first choice.
Rainer
ant.elder wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:2
On 03/10/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:23 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +1
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > though i do think for the next release all those separ
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please vote on accepting Droids into incubation.
+1
BR,
Jukka Zitting
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-m
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:23 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1
>
> +1
>
> > though i do think for the next release all those separate licenses in the
> > top level folder should be merged into the single LI
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:23 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
+1
> though i do think for the next release all those separate licenses in the
> top level folder should be merged into the single LICENSE and NOTICE files.
And this is where I disagree strongly. Licenses for 3rd party
lib
39 matches
Mail list logo
