On Sunday 19 March 2006 20:46, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 07:41:04AM +, James Strachan wrote:
> > (i) don't use the incubator code, but fork it elsewhere (say to
> > codehaus) and make releases there if Geronimo needs bug fixes
> > (ii) Geronimo use incubator release candidate
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 07:41:04AM +, James Strachan wrote:
> BTW I CC'd the Geronimo PMC as this is an interesting dilema for the
> Geronimo folks too
I'm not so happy with crossposting between public/private lists (private lists
should be unused if possible) so I dropped that again...thi
my 2 cents.
(i) don't use the incubator code, but fork it elsewhere (say to
codehaus) and make releases there if Geronimo needs bug fixes
-1
(ii) Geronimo use incubator release candidate releases
+1
(iii) ActiveMQ performs actual releases that Geronimo can depend on
and use but put sufficient
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, James Strachan wrote:
BTW we are currently calling all the artifacts incubator-activemq-*,
the jars are all called incubator-activemq*.jar, we include
disclaimers in the distro highlighting the incubator status and also
include these inside the manifests of the jars. So it
BTW I CC'd the Geronimo PMC as this is an interesting dilema for the
Geronimo folks too
On 3/17/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:10:50PM +, James Strachan wrote:
> > On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So we could include the in
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:10:50PM +, James Strachan wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So we could include the incubating ActiveMQ code inside an actual production
> Geronimo release - provided the ActiveMQ jars keep (their current name) of
> incubator-activemq.
Can people *please* get into the habit of changing subject lines to
match subject matter around here? Thanks!
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:03:27AM -0800, Henri Yandell wrote:
Alan wrote:
> > Not providing commit karma seems to be a bit like forced retirement
> > because of inactivity. Something tha
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> I actually tend to agree with Ken on these things
> Meritocracy *at the ASF* is a significant point.
And so staying in the Incubator long enough for people to have a sense of
confidence regarding the community makes sense to me. As I see it, moving a
project before having
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
If the ActiveMQ / ServiceMix community do decide to go under some
other TLP, I'm sure it would not take long for the active
participants of the community to asked to Join the TLP's PMC.
I would certainly hope that the
This is my understanding as well and what was communicated to me by
Incubator PMC people.
Regards,
Alan
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for
ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is in Geronimo or
not.
Basically if one nee
Hola,
I actually tend to agree with Ken on these things, and so my answer to
both of Alan's scenarios would be that yes, it's fair for the old
committer to not automatically get commit privileges or be on the PMC.
A healthy community would instantly welcome back the hypothetical
person who spent y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> Do these really have to be "Apache" credits accumulated?
How do the people at Apache get to see it otherwise?
I've pointed out what I think may be a problem. Having
done so, I'm content to have the legacy commit inheritan
On 3/16/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > I don't think there is such a restriction. Where did you come across
> > that? in other words, who said that?
> >
> > "we are apparently not allowed to use the incubati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[restoring the CC list since this definitely applies to the
people on those lists]
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> I don't think there is such a restriction. Where did you come across
> that? in other words, who said that?
>
> "we are apparently not allowe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> Note that we are apparently not allowed to use the incubating ActiveMQ
> inside Geronimo until it leaves incubation
>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-servicemix-dev/200602.mbox/browser
Due to the way mod_mbo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>
> I have another question: If that guy finds some time for working on
> the project again and asks for Karma: Do you indeed believe the
> project wouldn't be ready to vote him in as a committer?
But turn it around as well. C
I'll let Noel reply back to this, just to be sure :)
On 3/16/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for
> > ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for
> ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is in Geronimo or
> not.
Basically if one needs servicemix, they get a whole package that has
> incubating all over
I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for
ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is in Geronimo or
not.
Basically if one needs servicemix, they get a whole package that has
incubating all over it. Same with derby, if someone needed derby they
won't download G
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think there is such a restriction. Where did you come across
> that? in other words, who said that?
>
> "we are apparently not allowed to use the incubating ActiveMQ"
See this thread...
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/g
I don't think there is such a restriction. Where did you come across
that? in other words, who said that?
"we are apparently not allowed to use the incubating ActiveMQ"
thanks,
dims
On 3/16/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On 3/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
> > I believe that merging ActiveMQ and Servicemix into Geronimo
> > community and PMC is easier than most cases since there are
> > all ready several active ActiveMQ/ServiceMix commiters thar
> > are Geronimo PMC mem
On 3/16/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm convinced - this definitely seems like a very good reason to have
> inactive committers following an incubated project through to either
> TLP stage, or into another TLP, but not being on the PMC. I'd be less
> convinced on a project that w
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do these really have to be "Apache" credits accumulated? Let's do a
hypothetical situation. Let's say that some guy puts in a few years of
his life into a CodeHaus project. Then, he has a kid. At that time the
p
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do these really have to be "Apache" credits accumulated? Let's do a
> hypothetical situation. Let's say that some guy puts in a few years of
> his life into a CodeHaus project. Then, he has a kid. At that time the
> project moves to ASF
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting reply - I'd been assuming that when an incubatee graduates
> >> into an existing project, it's PPMC automati
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do these really have to be "Apache" credits accumulated? Let's do a
> hypothetical situation. Let's say that some guy puts in a few years of
> his life into a CodeHaus project. Then, he has a kid. At that time the
> project moves to ASF
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henri Yandell wrote:
Interesting reply - I'd been assuming that when an incubatee graduates
into an existing project, it's PPMC automatically get added to the
PMC. So I was a bit confused as to why Noel was even aski
Modifying the workflow slightly from my shoe-in assumption:
1) Remove all committers who have not contributed to the project while
it was under Incubation.If they were new committers, remove their
Apache accounts etc (well, freeze them - whatever).
2) Graduate into target, with PPMC members becomi
Hi Henri,
I think a good example of why not just a shoe in is because when the
ServiceMix and ActiveMQ apache commiter list was created, it included
all previous commiters to the project. But 100% of committers may not
have been active during the period of the incubation. All though the
projects
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> Interesting reply - I'd been assuming that when an incubatee graduates
> into an existing project, it's PPMC automatically get added to the
> PMC. So I was a bit confused as to why Noel was even asking the
> question.
Case-by
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> If the ActiveMQ / ServiceMix community do decide to go under some
> other TLP, I'm sure it would not take long for the active
> participants of the community to asked to Join the TLP's PMC.
I would certainly hope that they would want to be, yes. Hence ...
> I believe tha
On 3/15/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> If the ActiveMQ / ServiceMix community do decide to go under some
> other TLP, I'm sure it would not take long for the active
> participants of the community to asked to Join the TLP's PMC. It
> would behoove that PMC to include
Hi Noel,
If the ActiveMQ / ServiceMix community do decide to go under some
other TLP, I'm sure it would not take long for the active
participants of the community to asked to Join the TLP's PMC. It
would behoove that PMC to include such active community participants
in the decision making procce
Ken wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Considering that both ActiveMQ and ServiceMix really ought to be
> > targeting TLP status, learning to do this is important.
> That's a bit much, Noel. Where they end up is primarily
> their own concern -- and not determined until graduation
> anyway.
Sorr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Considering that both ActiveMQ and ServiceMix really ought to be
> targeting TLP status, learning to do this is important.
That's a bit much, Noel. Where they end up is primarily
their own concern -- and not determined unt
Noel,
I think this email represents a good example of mixing official
communication of the incubator with your personal agenda to make
these top level projects. Emails like this lead to questions like,
is this required of all podlings or is this just a requirement
because Noel thinks the
37 matches
Mail list logo
