On 3/20/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > Oh! I thought that the sysadmin loads preserved history...
>
> I believe they do -- they just don't add themselves
> to the history. But if you know the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Oh! I thought that the sysadmin loads preserved history...
I believe they do -- they just don't add themselves
to the history. But if you know the dates
of the imports, you can still discriminate -- but
those dates aren't s
Oh! I thought that the sysadmin loads preserved history...
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 3/20/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My question was slightl
On 3/20/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>My question was slightly different, related to commits before the import
> >>date vs the co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>My question was slightly different, related to commits before the import
>>date vs the commits after the import date for the same id.
>
> Yeah, there's no easy way t
On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > On 3/20/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >>> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >>>
> Here are
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 3/20/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Here are the SVN names for
everyone who has committed to each of the trees:
(Question : are those people
On 3/20/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >
> > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> >> Here are the SVN names for
> >> everyone who has committed to each of the trees:
>
> > (Question : are those pe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> Here are the SVN names for
>> everyone who has committed to each of the trees:
> (Question : are those people who committed here at the ASF, or does it
> include people who committed i
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Answering my own question, there are 27 people on the proposal. Here's
the list of folks who actually made any commits (grand total of 15)
Those are interesting -- though potentially meaningl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Answering my own question, there are 27 people on the proposal. Here's
> the list of folks who actually made any commits (grand total of 15)
Those are interesting -- though potentially meaningless -- data.
Let's try applying
On 3/16/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1 - although I wonder if it would be worth letting new projects report
> > each month for the first 3 months?
>
> ++1. This follows the Board's treatment of new TLPs so that we can
>
On 3/17/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> remember committing stuff is not the only way to be a
> participant. I'm always scared of these kinds of metrics --
> people tend to abuse them (not saying you are). As an example I
> have not committed a single line of code to harmony but I think
Dims,
remember committing stuff is not the only way to be a
participant. I'm always scared of these kinds of metrics --
people tend to abuse them (not saying you are). As an example I
have not committed a single line of code to harmony but I think most
people would agree I am an active part of its
On Mar 16, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Mads Toftum wrote:
-- ensure that the quarterly report is provided
to the Incubator PMC
+1 - although I wonder if it would be worth letting new projects
report
each month for the first 3 months?
+1 good idea
-dain
-
On 3/16/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is a good point - a project that can't raise the interest
> of more than one member is likely to struggle with generating enough
> interest and attracting enough of a community in the future.
Sure - but there's a marked difference b
On 3/16/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 - although I wonder if it would be worth letting new projects report
> each month for the first 3 months?
++1. This follows the Board's treatment of new TLPs so that we can
ensure the start-up goes smoothly. -- justin
-
Mads Toftum wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:31:05AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> Considering the number of proposals coming at the incubator
>> these days, and the concerns raised about that fact, perhaps
>> needing multiple ASF people with enthusiasm about each is
>> precisely a rea
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:31:05AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> Considering the number of proposals coming at the incubator
> these days, and the concerns raised about that fact, perhaps
> needing multiple ASF people with enthusiasm about each is
> precisely a reasonable governor.
> -
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:49:13PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> -- We should require 3+ Mentors for each project
> -- Upon acceptance, we should establish the initial
> PPMC as consisting of the Mentors.
> -- Upon project acceptance, we should immediately
> create the [EMAIL PROTEC
I'm not sure what is going on with that, I have commtted work to AMQ
although it has been quite a while.
Why are you looking only at the branches? And in particular why not
include amq 4?
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 14, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Hmmm...
svn log svn://sv
Hmmm...
svn log svn://svn.activemq.org/activemq/scm/branches/activemq-3/activemq
| grep "|" | cut -f 2 -d "|" | sort | uniq
gives me just 15:
aco
ammulder
brianm
chirino
djcook
foconer
gnt
jgapuz
jlim
jstrachan
maguro
pbrooke
pvillacorta
rajdavies
rsaba
-- dims
On 3/14/06, Alan
Yes, to cover that a Software Grant and an iCLA is enough.
-- dims
On 3/14/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIUC, they all contributed code to the AMQ project.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > What i'd be interested to know is how many of the 17 Non-Apache
> >
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
-- Once established, the PPMC shall
-- work to make sure that the other resources
are put into place.
- -0. Mentor's job, not a PPMC one.
While I think that the mentors should be ultimately responsible for
this, it
IIUC, they all contributed code to the AMQ project.
Regards,
Alan
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
What i'd be interested to know is how many of the 17 Non-Apache
Committers noted on the proposal[1] got Apache id's and of them how
many of them actually made any commits to the Apache SVN repo.
[1] http
On Mar 14, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
And continuning the discussion from the OpenJPA proposal thread, do
the other 27 - 15 = 12 people on the proposal get moved into
non-committer status?
Speaking as one of those twelve, I'd greatly appreciate not being
removed just because I am
Hola,
On 3/14/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Answering my own question, there are 27 people on the proposal. Here's
> the list of folks who actually made any commits (grand total of 15)
>
> Are we stretching the requirement for diversity a bit too far?
And continuning the discu
Answering my own question, there are 27 people on the proposal. Here's
the list of folks who actually made any commits (grand total of 15)
Are we stretching the requirement for diversity a bit too far?
aco
adc
bsnyder
chirino
dblevins
dflores
djcook
foconer
gnodet
gregw
jgapuz
jlim
jstrachan
pvil
What i'd be interested to know is how many of the 17 Non-Apache
Committers noted on the proposal[1] got Apache id's and of them how
many of them actually made any commits to the Apache SVN repo.
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ActiveMqProposal
On 3/14/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Jencks wrote:
>
> I think I'm seeing too much incipient dogmatism here. A little while
> ago I remember reading about how it was possible for code to zip
> through the incubator on its way to become part of an existing
> project, resting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> Now, I have no problem with recommending or encouraging multiple
> mentors - but if we have a member who says that project Foo is a great
> idea and no one else is inclined to mentor it, I don't think it should
> be the re
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
-- We should require 3+ Mentors for each project
-1. +1 to encourage 3+ to mentor, but it's not worth having folks
step up to mentor a project simply because 'they need three' -
quoting Justin's thoughts - with which I wholeheartedly
On 3/13/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -1. +1 to encourage 3+ to mentor, but it's not worth having folks
> > step up to mentor a project simply because 'they need three' -
> > quoting Justin's thoughts - with which I wholeheartedly agree. We
> > don't need body counts,
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
-- We should require 3+ Mentors for each project
-- Upon acceptance, we should establish the initial
PPMC as consisting of the Mentors.
I'd like to add that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> -- We should require 3+ Mentors for each project
>
> -1. +1 to encourage 3+ to mentor, but it's not worth having folks
> step up to mentor a project simply because 'they need three' -
> quoting Justin's thoughts - w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
More detailed response.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> -- We should require 3+ Mentors for each project
At least 2, anyway. Nice-to-have: at least one that
doesn't have a vested interest in the package.
> -- Upon acceptance, we should establish the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> -- We should require 3+ Mentors for each project
> -- Upon acceptance, we should establish the initial
> PPMC as consisting of the Mentors.
I'd like to add that I think a PPMC is a requirement,
not a 'nice-to-have.'
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We have the notion of a PPMC, but I don't believe that we are making as
effective use of them as we should. This is effecting our ability to scale,
and allowing things to fall into the cracks. In addition, people are not as
clear as they should be on how the Incubation Pr
On 3/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- We should require 3+ Mentors for each project
As before when we 'voted' on this, I am -1 on this idea.
My post was:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200601.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Might we close that VOTE thr
We have the notion of a PPMC, but I don't believe that we are making as
effective use of them as we should. This is effecting our ability to scale,
and allowing things to fall into the cracks. In addition, people are not as
clear as they should be on how the Incubation Process works. So ...
--
40 matches
Mail list logo
