On Jan 14, 2004, at 6:09 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Eh. I think community doesn't matter at all when the Incubator is
simply performing accountable legal oversight. If a TLP says they
want
a codebase from the outside, and we have determined that there are no
lega
Leo Simons wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
...
However, I still don't know where the STATUS file should be placed.
according to incubator policy, inside incubator cvs
incubator/site/projects/${project-name}.cwiki
which gets generated using forrest into
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/${projec
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> Eh. I think community doesn't matter at all when the Incubator is
> simply performing accountable legal oversight. If a TLP says they want
> a codebase from the outside, and we have determined that there are no
> legal impediments to that codebase from entering th
Ceki,
> I still don't know where the STATUS file should be placed.
AIUI, these documents should be checked into the Incubator CVS module under
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator/site/projects/. When they are
successful, they get moved one level down. Keeping them in one place makes
the
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Given that no one has yet answered, probably my question was silly.
nah, the subject line threw me off...I suspect many people are ignoring
the rest of the thread :D
However, I still don't know where the STATUS file should be placed.
according to incubator policy, inside incubat
Hello,
Given that no one has yet answered, probably my question was silly.
However, I still don't know where the STATUS file should be placed. Can we
have it placed within the Logging Services site?
TIA,
At 02:01 PM 1/14/2004 +0100, you wrote:
At 08:01 PM 1/13/2004 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
At 08:01 PM 1/13/2004 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> It would helpful if the purpose of the Incubator was clarified. If
> it is an inspection tool, then it should not be disguised as a
> service.
Nutshell: the purpose of the Incubator is to help bring projects into the
ASF, whi
On Jan 12, 2004, at 1:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
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
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> It would helpful if the purpose of the Incubator was clarified. If
> it is an inspection tool, then it should not be disguised as a
> service.
Nutshell: the purpose of the Incubator is to help bring projects into the
ASF, while ensuring that the proper procedures are followed
At 03:02 PM 1/12/2004 -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
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'
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
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> > I am inclined to create a new CVS module for log4net and for each
> > sub-project. If a log4-X committer wants to commit a patch to project
> > log4-Y, they can ask to become a log4-Y committer.
> +1.
Doing the above is probably especially appropriat
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
What is it we are voting access for here? Is it to the overall
logging project repository? To a CVS module for the log4net code that
is to be created?
I am inclined to create a new CVS module for log4net and for each
sub-project. If a log4-X committer wants to commit a pat
27 matches
Mail list logo
