Hehe. cross checked the ACL's. James should be able to update any
incubator document we have :)
-- dims
On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/22/05, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thanks everyone for your comments. We should maybe capture some
On 12/22/05, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your comments. We should maybe capture some of
> the points raised in this thread into the incubation guide?
+1
submit a patch ;)
(been waiting years to say that to james)
AUIU the consensus seems to be that the doc
On 12/21/2005 3:13 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59:11AM +, James Strachan wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always
took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never
Greg Stein wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating
> > project move to the org.apache package?
> I would say "yes".
As would (and did) most others. We should add this to the Incubation
checklist. I don't want to see another mistake made as was
James Strachan wrote:
> I don't see why we need to force a major package name
> change on our users.
Branding and consistency. A wrapper package can be used to deprecate the
old names.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mai
On 22 Dec 2005, at 06:36, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 19:47 -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:16:13AM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project
move to
the org.apache package?
I would say "yes".
Bi
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 19:47 -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:16:13AM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to
> > the org.apache package?
>
> I would say "yes".
Big +1.
We of course cannot control standard AP
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:16:13AM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to
> the org.apache package?
I would say "yes".
Consider five years down the road. The pre-Incubator life of a project
is a distant memory at that point. You're
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 18:02 +, James Strachan wrote:
> Dims could you please give us a bit of time to get ServiceMix's house
> in order first before we can start collaborating with other projects
> in earnest. Don't worry there will be collaboration.
+1!
Sanjiva.
--
On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:45, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Dan,
Then at least the proposal should be honest enough, not to name names.
If we don't know what ServiceMix's needs are, we cannot make sure the
design of Synapse will fit right with ServiceMix. No one is asking for
a code drop. Asking for inv
On 21 Dec 2005, at 14:42, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
James,
Incubation process is not set in stone. Just last week, we voted on
standardizing the mailing list names. So it is a mix of good
judgement, experience, consensus and rules. If you insist we can put
start a VOTE on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think
Dan,
Then at least the proposal should be honest enough, not to name names.
If we don't know what ServiceMix's needs are, we cannot make sure the
design of Synapse will fit right with ServiceMix. No one is asking for
a code drop. Asking for involvement, i think that's what a community
means. getti
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
James,
Incubation process is not set in stone. Just last week, we voted on
standardizing the mailing list names. So it is a mix of good
judgement, experience, consensus and rules. If you insist we can put
start a VOTE on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you are part of that as w
James,
Incubation process is not set in stone. Just last week, we voted on
standardizing the mailing list names. So it is a mix of good
judgement, experience, consensus and rules. If you insist we can put
start a VOTE on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you are part of that as well.
I did bring up issue
On 21 Dec 2005, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
James,
To be blunt, what is being done here? here's what i see as a casual
observer to the infra list.
- A bunch of projects are getting into Apache controlled by the same
set of people (ServiceMix/ActiveMQ/XBean/WADI)
Not really; see the comm
James,
To be blunt, what is being done here? here's what i see as a casual
observer to the infra list.
- A bunch of projects are getting into Apache controlled by the same
set of people (ServiceMix/ActiveMQ/XBean/WADI)
- Folks are getting completely unrelated projects into an umbrella
project "Ge
On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:40 AM, James Strachan wrote:
I think the package name change is currently not mandatory, but
perhaps
it should be.
I'm not so sure. There's already various stuff at Apache that
breaks this rule (SAX, DOM, JCP APIs such as stuff in geronimo-
spec, the SCA specif
On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On 12/21/05, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package
name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name
On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:13, Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59:11AM +, James Strachan wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always
took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had
the
On 12/21/05, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package
> name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name
> is owned (& we'd be happy to donate to Apache)
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59:11AM +, James Strachan wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always
> >took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had
> >the need to codify it...
>
> Yeah -
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always
took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had
the need to codify it...
Yeah - I've never seen it actually written down anywhere & noticed
that the Rolle
Right - I would assume you provide some kind of adapter package so
existing code works, and deprecate it...
On Dec 20, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Of course, the answer may not be that simple if you have an existing
user base that programs against your APIs.
I think it would be wis
Of course, the answer may not be that simple if you have an existing
user base that programs against your APIs.
I think it would be wise to do this as soon as possible and judge the
impact. We found we had to write a couple of compatibility interfaces
under the old package scheme to retain binary
It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always took
for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had the
need to codify it...
On Dec 20, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move
to the org.ap
Yes :)
-- dims
On 12/20/05, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to
> the org.apache package?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
26 matches
Mail list logo
