On 8/16/05, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> > On 8/10/05, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 8/8/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> I don't mind an incubating project making verifiable releases
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/10/05, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>>On 8/8/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
I don't mind an incubating project making verifiable releases with
proper voting and the appropriate disclaimers.
>>>
>>>I c
On 8/10/05, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> > On 8/8/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I don't mind an incubating project making verifiable releases with
> >>proper voting and the appropriate disclaimers.
> >
> > I completely agree, and I believe
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 17:12 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> form of snapshots. Nobody outside the developers working on the
> project should be using those snapshots.
by that definition, maven should be still in the
incubator
gee, look. it never was. Why oh why I wonder...
Regards
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/8/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I don't mind an incubating project making verifiable releases with
>>proper voting and the appropriate disclaimers.
>
> I completely agree, and I believe this is exactly what projects want to do.
>
> Are there any P
On 8/8/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't mind an incubating project making verifiable releases with
> proper voting and the appropriate disclaimers.
I completely agree, and I believe this is exactly what projects want to do.
Are there any PMC members who disagree with Roy's
Craig McClanahan wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > > Snapshots are not releases. Releases require three binding +1s,
> > > a majority of positive votes, and a verifiable signature.
> > >
> > > I think it is absurd for any project to be distributing snapshots
> > > to
On 8/8/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > Snapshots are not releases. Releases require three binding +1s,
> > a majority of positive votes, and a verifiable signature.
>
> > I think it is absurd for any project to be distributing snapshots
> > to end-us
Eric Dittert wrote:
> 1) If you discourage making releases while in incubation,
>aren't you effectively preventing projects that have,
>through whatever mechanism, already acquired a
>significant user base from entering the Apache fold
We do permit releases, with suitable disclaimer,
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Snapshots are not releases. Releases require three binding +1s,
> a majority of positive votes, and a verifiable signature.
> I think it is absurd for any project to be distributing snapshots
> to end-users since it bypasses our mechanism of oversight.
And this is true
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 12:36, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I think it is absurd for any project to be distributing snapshots
> to end-users since it bypasses our mechanism of oversight.
> I won't support that at all for incubating projects.
You would support that for non-incubating projects??? ;o)
Snapshots are not releases. Releases require three binding +1s,
a majority of positive votes, and a verifiable signature.
I think it is absurd for any project to be distributing snapshots
to end-users since it bypasses our mechanism of oversight.
I won't support that at all for incubating projec
Dittert, Eric wrote:
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday,
August 08, 2005 6:40 PM
As I said, it is about balance. The community that we most care
about during Incubation is the developer community, not the
end-user community. I could go so far as to say that a bit of
in
>From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:40 PM
>
>As I said, it is about balance. The community that we most care about
>during Incubation is the developer community, not the end-user community.
>I
>could go so far as to say that a bit of inconvenience for
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > Please note that although we have attempted to establish
> > > a balanced policy, it is not our goal to have widespread
> > > adoption of projects that are still in the Incubator. We
> > > want projects to be making a
On 8/7/05, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/7/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please note that although we have attempted to establish a balanced policy,
> > it is not our goal to have widespread adoption of projects that are still in
> > the Incubator. We wa
On Aug 5, 2005, at 5:26 PM, Craig Russell wrote:
I don't understand what this means in terms of our ability to put jdo
snapshots into ibiblio, whence I know maven knows how to retrieve
them. If there is another publicly available repo, ok, but let's not
lose sight of the objective: to give use
On 8/7/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please note that although we have attempted to establish a balanced policy,
> it is not our goal to have widespread adoption of projects that are still in
> the Incubator. We want projects to be making a focused effort to get out of
> the In
Leo Simons wrote:
> Otherwise, people just copy-paste a maven project.xml snippet
> and never realise what they have is not "official" apache
> stuff (yet). We don't want that.
Correct, we most certainly do not.
In fact, there was recently a similar problem with an existing project and
an unoffi
On 07-08-2005 05:41, "Craig Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If the group name is intended to reflect the actual root package name, then
>>> org.apache.jdo would seem correct. If it's not, perhaps someone can offer
>>> some pointers to where the discussion took place so I could understand it
Hi Brett,On Aug 6, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Brett Porter wrote:On 8/7/05, Craig Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Brett,I looked at ibiblio and found some "official-looking" jars checked in. Itseems that we might use javax.jdo as the group name for the jdo2.jar (thisis the official API) once JDO is of
On 8/7/05, Craig Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Brett,
>
> I looked at ibiblio and found some "official-looking" jars checked in. It
> seems that we might use javax.jdo as the group name for the jdo2.jar (this
> is the official API) once JDO is official, and then use either
> org.apache.j
Hi Brett,I looked at ibiblio and found some "official-looking" jars checked in. It seems that we might use javax.jdo as the group name for the jdo2.jar (this is the official API) once JDO is official, and then use either org.apache.jdo or org.apache.db.jdo as the group name for the rest of the rele
You can always add
maven.repo.remote = http://svn.apache.org/repository, http://www.ibiblio.org/
to your build.properties and state in the docs for JDO that "unofficial
releases" are available from there. Add this information to the POM for
the JDO jar.
Regards
Henning
I'd even add
"could you please write this up as general instructions for projects
wanting to put their stuff up for testing / for official releases"
As far as I was able to gobble together:
www.apache.org/dist/java-repository/
- synced to ibiblio
- for "official" releases only, no snapshots
Hi,Thanks for the useful feedback.The dotted notation is news to me but makes a lot of sense. I'll study the reading materials and ask questions if it's too hard to suss out.On Aug 5, 2005, at 6:03 PM, Brett Porter wrote:On 8/6/05, Craig Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It'd be great if you can p
Will do.
On 8/6/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett,
>
> Would you please write this up as general instructions for Incubator
> projects, and we can add it to the web-site?
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> -
> To
Brett,
Would you please write this up as general instructions for Incubator
projects, and we can add it to the web-site?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE
On 8/6/05, Craig Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It'd be great if you can put them up at cvs.apache.org, maybe under a
> group of org.apache.incubator.jdo?
>
> I don't understand what this means. I don't know how, or don't have
> privileges to, publish anything except via svn.
Sorry, when r
Craig Russell wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
> > http://cvs.apache.org/repository is not synced to ibiblio.
> I don't understand what this means in terms of our ability
> to put jdo snapshots into ibiblio
It means that you don't. Brett provided the publically available repository
that can be used
Hi Brett,On Aug 5, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Brett Porter wrote:Hi Brian,http://cvs.apache.org/repository is not synced to ibiblio. We'veremoved all snapshots from ibiblio's Maven2 repository (thoughretaining them in the original maven one for backwards compatibility).I don't understand what this means in
Hi Brian,
http://cvs.apache.org/repository is not synced to ibiblio. We've
removed all snapshots from ibiblio's Maven2 repository (though
retaining them in the original maven one for backwards compatibility).
It'd be great if you can put them up at cvs.apache.org, maybe under a
group of org.apach
Is it okay for the (incubating) jdo project to post snapshots to the
maven repository at ibiblio via the cvs.apache.org repo?
The only catch is figuring a good way to label it as in incubation.
One option is to include it the artifact id, so it would be something
like:
jdo2-incubating-2.0
33 matches
Mail list logo
