I'd be willing to help out with a RAT TLP. We're using it in our normal
build process for OpenJPA, Geronimo and Bean Validation, so helping out
on future votes is the least I can do.
-Donald
On 8/12/10 5:52 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On W
Hi Niall,
On 8/12/10 2:52 AM, "Niall Pemberton" wrote:
> Clearly then there are small TLPs that operate effectively. However
> any TLP that can't get 3 PMC votes is effectively dead and I don't
> want to see RAT end up in that situation in a year or two. Seeing only
> 3 votes on the RAT 0.7 rele
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's required of
>> all the Incubator projects, but pretty widely integra
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:12, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2010-08-11, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> The real point though is not size - its *activity*.
>>
>> [absolutely correct observation of low activity snipped]
>>
>>> My concern is if RAT
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 15:30, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>>> [...]
>>> So yes, development activity is low.
>>>
>>> OTOH patches get applied and releases are made if there is anything to
>>> fix. I'm sure we could have gotten more people to vote if it had been
>>> necessary on
Hi Guys,
>> [...]
>> So yes, development activity is low.
>>
>> OTOH patches get applied and releases are made if there is anything to
>> fix. I'm sure we could have gotten more people to vote if it had been
>> necessary on the last release, it just wasn't necessary so people
>> preferred to wor
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:12, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-08-11, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> The real point though is not size - its *activity*.
>
> [absolutely correct observation of low activity snipped]
>
>> My concern is if RAT goes TLP then it may be a small step away from
>> not being a
On 2010-08-11, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> The real point though is not size - its *activity*.
[absolutely correct observation of low activity snipped]
> My concern is if RAT goes TLP then it may be a small step away from
> not being able to get 3 PMC votes.
I understand that and share the concern
7;s big enough to
>> justify
>> an own TLP.
>> It previously was under codehaus and I agree it would best fit under the
>> maven
>> TLP.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> - Original Message
>>> From: Jochen Wiedmann
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Philip M. Gollucci
wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 10:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> It is *very* true that Infra, Legal, and (all?) ASF PMCs will be
>>> clients/users of the tool. But are they interested in
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 22:43, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 10:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> It is *very* true that Infra, Legal, and (all?) ASF PMCs will be
>>> clients/users of the tool. But are they interested in i
On 8/10/2010 10:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
It is *very* true that Infra, Legal, and (all?) ASF PMCs will be
clients/users of the tool. But are they interested in its development?
If it goes under infra (as some are pushing for), then Jo
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> It is *very* true that Infra, Legal, and (all?) ASF PMCs will be
> clients/users of the tool. But are they interested in its development?
If it goes under infra (as some are pushing for), then Joe gets to
rewrite it in Perl. Hey, that's not a
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> If
> there will ever be a migration to a new license like ASL 3 or a
> another change of the header policy, then RAT will likely play a very
> important part in the process.
There's also an SPDX spec coming to describe the licensing in
pro
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 07:00
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; rat-...@incubator.apache.org;
> d...@commons.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Future of RAT
>
> On 2010-08-10, Mattma
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's required of
> all the Incubator projects, but pretty widely integrated (at least in Java
> land) outside of the Incubator as a tool to
> Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 10:48:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Future of RAT
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> > Maybe I need to catch up with the current status: is RAT still mainly
>targeted
> > to ASF projects, or is it a general Release Aud
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Maybe I need to catch up with the current status: is RAT still mainly targeted
> to ASF projects, or is it a general Release Audit Tool and as such also useful
> for releasing GPLed or BSL style projects?
Unfortunately, there is no clear re
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:25, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Maybe I need to catch up with the current status: is RAT still mainly targeted
> to ASF projects, or is it a general Release Audit Tool and as such also useful
> for releasing GPLed or BSL style projects?
>
> If it is still ASF centric,
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:40, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
>...
> WDYT?
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:26, Craig L Russell wrote:
>...
> I'd suggest letting the RAT PPMC decide what they want to do. If they are
> unable to come to a decision, they can come back and ask for more opinions.
They asked for
I'm +1 for TLP. No need to start creating more umbrella projects. If
finding a chair is troublesome, I'd be more than willing to fill that
gap (although I'm not on the RAT ppmc, nor have written a single line
of code for it). As a mentor and user I love the utility, so keeping
it around and making
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
>
> WDYT?
I agree with others who've said RAT should consider going TLP.
-Rahul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional command
as under codehaus and I agree it would best fit
under the
maven
TLP.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message
From: Jochen Wiedmann
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 4:47:49 PM
Subject: Re: Future of RAT
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
;rat-...@incubator.apache.org"
> Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 7:59:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Future of RAT
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> > Perhaps this just needs generalizing a smidge.
> >
> > Who are the users of/community for RAT? If that can be determined then the
> &g
stence.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:37, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> RAT is very important and helpful, but I don't think it's big enough to
>> justify
>>> an own TLP.
>>> It previously was under codeha
x27;t think it's big enough to
> justify
> > an own TLP.
> > It previously was under codehaus and I agree it would best fit under the
> maven
> > TLP.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > - Original Message
> >> Fro
While I second that in general, and I have argued (unsuccessfully) on
the incubator list against arbitrary size constraints for graduating
podlings, still in theory a PMC min size comes from the need to have a
sustainable quorum to vote on releases. If it can get at least 3
people to vote,
Hi All,
>
> TLPs are not "expensive", so they don't have to have a "minimum size"
> to justify their existence.
+1.
Cheers,
Chris
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109
think it's big enough to
> justify
> an own TLP.
> It previously was under codehaus and I agree it would best fit under the maven
> TLP.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> - Original Message
>> From: Jochen Wiedmann
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
&g
On 2010-08-10, Mark Struberg wrote:
> RAT is very important and helpful, but I don't think it's big enough
> to justify an own TLP.
> It previously was under codehaus and I agree it would best fit under
> the maven TLP.
RAT > RAT Maven Plugin. RAT initially was developed at Google Code.
Stefan
.org
> Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 4:47:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Future of RAT
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>
> > I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's required of
> > all the Incubator projects, but p
On Aug 10, 2010, at 7:03 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hi Stefan,
However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why
not
have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing
anyone on the team that would be able to?
Jochen has sure be joking here. Th
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:58, ant elder wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>
>> However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not have
>> a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing anyone on
>> the team that wou
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's required of
> all the Incubator projects, but pretty widely integrated (at least in Java
> land) outside of the Incubator as a tool to help check ASF policies. To me,
Hi Stefan,
>> However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not
>> have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing
>> anyone on the team that would be able to?
>
> Jochen has sure be joking here. The team list he pointed at contains at
> least two curren
On 2010-08-10, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not
> have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing
> anyone on the team that would be able to?
Jochen has sure be joking here. The team list he pointed at c
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not have a
> RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing anyone on the
> team that would be able to? Hen files them all the time (well he used
Hi Jochen,
First off, congrats on even sending this email. I've often wondered by RAT is
still lingering in the Incubator when it's been pretty much widely used for a
long time, has a functional community, and keeps plugging forward with its
mission. So, first off, +1 to getting out of the Incu
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> having just published a release of Apache RAT with the "-incubating"
> label, I'd though it is time to discuss the future of RAT. RAT is an
> incubator project since 18 months. It is not an overly busy project:
> The occasional fea
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-08-10, ant elder wrote:
>
>> How about keeping it here at the Incubator?
>
> I was going to suggest that as well - as a subproject, not as an eternal
> podling. But I understand Ross point of sending the wrong signal.
> Infra would
On 2010-08-10, ant elder wrote:
> How about keeping it here at the Incubator?
I was going to suggest that as well - as a subproject, not as an eternal
podling. But I understand Ross point of sending the wrong signal.
Infra would be fine with me if infra wanted to absorb rat.
Stefan
---
On 10/08/2010 12:48, ant elder wrote:
How about keeping it here at the Incubator? It could be a showcase
project that demonstrates how to do things like releases, as well as
an "eat your own dog food" type place to help avoid any unnecessarily
burdensome IPMC processes and procedures ;)
I near
How about keeping it here at the Incubator? It could be a showcase
project that demonstrates how to do things like releases, as well as
an "eat your own dog food" type place to help avoid any unnecessarily
burdensome IPMC processes and procedures ;)
...ant
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Sie
Hi Jochen,
not sure if Commons is the right place sine RAT has a very spezialized
scope or to state it differently I would not look for RAT in Commons.
What about Maven TLP?
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 10.08.10 12:40, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Hi,
having just published a release of Apache R
Forgot one possible issue: Currently, RAT has its own mailing lists,
which would be unusual for Commons. My personal choice would be to
leave this as it is, but that's of course also subject to discussion.
Jochen
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> having just pub
45 matches
Mail list logo
