I don't ever recall any discussion that culminated into an official
vote.
On 3-Jul-08, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
IIRC, we have voted on precisely this matter in the past. It just
seems that the issue will constantly be reopened until folks get
their person
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I'd be very surprised if it does close the issue :).
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...IMHO voting about where to put incubator Maven artifacts is a majority
>> vote among of the Incubator PMC, so that should allow us
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> IIRC, we have voted on precisely this matter in the past. It just
> seems that the issue will constantly be reopened until folks get
> their personally desired result.
I agree.
--- Noel
-
To
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd be very surprised if it does close the issue :)...
>
> IMHO voting about where to put incubator Maven artifacts is a majority
> vote
> we'll use it as an opportunity to refactor some of the APIs in order to avoid
> a double breakage in concurrent versions.
We have some minor refactoring to do as well and we've decided to do
the same thing - if there's going to be an inconvenience, you might as
well bundle it all at once (if you
It sounds as if waiting at the last possible second to move from
org.jsecurity.* to org.apache.jsecurity.* is the best option for us.
That way we can move over to the Apache SVN as soon as possible, but
impact the existing community only when absolutely necessary.
This is what we decided with JS
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be very surprised if it does close the issue :)...
IMHO voting about where to put incubator Maven artifacts is a majority
vote among of the Incubator PMC, so that should allow us to move
forward, even if we're not u
I'd be very surprised if it does close the issue :)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My guess is this issue will keep coming up *TILL* the folks who want
>> this to h
Oops, I feel this hijacked Jukka's thread.
So, what about the following Maven repo statement?
Incubating projects won't be published to the main repository under
the org.apache group ID, but they are free to publish to other group
ids of their choosing.
This means existing projects that enter th
Thanks to IntelliJ Idea, which updates our Spring and Hibernate files
automatically during refactoring already, even this isn't an issue for
us (thankfully). We should be good!
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>> I don't know
Les Hazlewood wrote:
I don't know the exact usage, but I'm sure it is in lower thousands -
many people use our .jars directly, but probably many more use it via
3rd party plugins (Grails plugin, etc) that is built on top of
JSecurity.
It sounds as if waiting at the last possible second to move f
I don't know the exact usage, but I'm sure it is in lower thousands -
many people use our .jars directly, but probably many more use it via
3rd party plugins (Grails plugin, etc) that is built on top of
JSecurity.
It sounds as if waiting at the last possible second to move from
org.jsecurity.* to
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
This work too. Depends on the existing user's base, I guess ?
Which was in the thousands for Wicket at the time, with numerous
systems in production.
and it makes perfect sense to follow your way in this case. How many
users does JSecurity has ?
Regarding th
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd suggest also to rename the packages only when
>> you are almost ready to graduate. This allows you to merge current
>> development and maintenance quite easily.
>
> This is only if you intent to keep both subversio
Hi Martijn,
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
I would
therefore continue maintaining the old jsecurity code, and release
those outside the incubator, just as normal business for your project.
There are options. Maintaining the old repo can be tough, as the
repository will be different, and make merges
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My guess is this issue will keep coming up *TILL* the folks who want
> this to happen get their way! sigh! :(
That's why I plan to call a vote on the matter. That should close the issue.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Martijn,
This is excellent feedback, thanks very much!
That being said, it would make everyone's lives easier if incubator
releases were in the central repository, so I still vote +1 on that ;)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JSecurity also meets condition b)
>
> Our users will scream bloody murder if they can no longer access
> JSecurity from the central repository. So we'll continue to publish
> there, even if it means publishing under the ol
I'll just append that I, and I'm sure the huge majority of people in
the world that use Maven, would find it incredibly irritating if
incubator releases were not automatically available in the central
repository.
So a huge +1 to enable this.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL
JSecurity also meets condition b)
Our users will scream bloody murder if they can no longer access
JSecurity from the central repository. So we'll continue to publish
there, even if it means publishing under the old org.jsecurity group
id.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAI
Jukka,
My guess is this issue will keep coming up *TILL* the folks who want
this to happen get their way! sigh! :(
-- dims
On 6/26/08, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So far, despite lots of discussion, we haven't come up with a
> consensus on this issue. I plan to start a maj
Hi,
So far, despite lots of discussion, we haven't come up with a
consensus on this issue. I plan to start a majority vote on this to
settle the debate one way or another, but before that (and to avoid
dissolving the vote thread into another debate) I'd like to ask anyone
interested to bring up an
23 matches
Mail list logo
