On Jul 29, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,
maintain, and release non-ASF releases. To be sure in the case of
JSecurity the final artifacts will not use
Hi Craig,
You have lost me here. Are you saying that the supposed license
contradicts the patent grants in the Apache license, which are
explicitly mentioned by the required notices?
Has this ever happened, or are we in hypothetical-land?
Alan asked a what-if question, so we are safely with
Oops, I should have said that "the conventional process is for the
podling to follow the usual Apache process and then call for a
Incubator PMC VOTE on the general incubator list."
Shouldn't have implied that some podlings might not follow the
conventional process.
Craig
On Aug 1, 2008,
Craig L Russell wrote:
It takes at least a week for an incubating release to get out because in
addition to getting everything right the first time, you need a 3 day
vote in the project and a 3 day vote in the incubator.
Bullshit
It takes 3 days. You need 3 binding PMC votes from the Incub
Upayavira wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > It should be fine to use our infrastructure to hold the source code, as
long
> > as we don't have license pollution issues. They cannot use it to do
> > releases.
> Can you clarify what you mean by 'releases'?
> They cannot use it to do ASF releases,
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 11:49 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 July 2008 18:59, Upayavira wrote:
> > i.e. would it be acceptable to do a SourceForge release based upon code
> > in the ASF repository?
>
> Yes, you know that the license allows this. BUT it can't be called an Apache
> JS
On Wednesday 30 July 2008 18:59, Upayavira wrote:
> i.e. would it be acceptable to do a SourceForge release based upon code
> in the ASF repository?
Yes, you know that the license allows this. BUT it can't be called an Apache
JSecurity release, nor should they portray it as such in correspondence
On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 21:23 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
> > infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,
> > maintain, and release non-ASF releases. To be sure in the case of
> > JSecurity the final artif
> Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
> infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,
> maintain, and release non-ASF releases. To be sure in the case of
> JSecurity the final artifacts will not use the ASF mirrors but that
> does not hide the fa
On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Let's turn this around and look at it from a different light. What's
stopping us from doing a 0.9.0 release in the incubator? I'm
guessing that
you need the packages to be the same?
Yes, that is one of the biggest reasons I can see at t
> Let's turn this around and look at it from a different light. What's
> stopping us from doing a 0.9.0 release in the incubator? I'm guessing that
> you need the packages to be the same?
Yes, that is one of the biggest reasons I can see at the moment.
Probably more of a driving force though i
On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,
On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,
maintain,
and release non-ASF releases. To be sure i
Hi Roland,
On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:49 AM, Roland Weber wrote:
Hi Craig,
Craig L Russell wrote:
[craig] I think I got the attribution correct in this. Please
correct if I got it wrong.
You got it right (I think :-).
Whew!
[roland]Yes, and why shouldn't it be? Anybody can pull Apache
s
On Jul 28, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,
maintain,
and release non-ASF releases. To be sure in the case of JSecurity
the final
artifacts will not u
So, to make this a little more clear, when Wicket performed a few
non-ASF
releases on their old project site was their old Subversion
repository
shutdown and the ASF Subversion repository exclusively used?
Yes. We are volunteers. Having to maintain 2 repositories would have
been prohibitive.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, to make this a little more clear, when Wicket performed a few non-ASF
> releases on their old project site was their old Subversion repository
> shutdown and the ASF Subversion repository exclusively used?
Yes. We ar
>
> Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
> infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build, maintain,
> and release non-ASF releases. To be sure in the case of JSecurity the final
> artifacts will not use the ASF mirrors but that does not hide the fa
On Jul 26, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:47 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you provide one example? Just curious
While it was incubating, Wicket did a few non-ASF relea
On Jul 26, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, a
On Jul 26, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Roland Weber wrote:
Hi Alan,
see my 0.02€ below...
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrer
Hi Craig,
Craig L Russell wrote:
[craig] I think I got the attribution correct in this. Please correct if
I got it wrong.
You got it right (I think :-).
[roland]Yes, and why shouldn't it be? Anybody can pull Apache sources
from
our public SVN repo and make releases with or without modificat
[craig] I think I got the attribution correct in this. Please correct
if I got it wrong.
On Jul 26, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Roland Weber wrote:
[bill]The act of a tag-tar-vote-release at the ASF is an act of
the foundation
(as long as the RM/PMC follows the whole process) so it is a
shield, of
Ask Cayenne who worked that way for a long time.
Ciao
Henning
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 11:19 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> > While it was incubating, Wicket did a few non-ASF releases on their
> > old project site, to minimize disruption for
Hi Alan,
see my 0.02€ below...
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Some things to consider in this discussi
On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:47 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you provide one example? Just curious
While it was incubating, Wicket did a few non-ASF releases on their
old project site, to minimize disruption fo
On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Follow-on releases c
Yes. Most, if not all, all of ASF project's subversion repository
works this way. It seems bizarre to me as an ASF member.
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 26, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Really?
So if I make a commit for my project, and that is revision N, then if
someone immediately mak
Really?
So if I make a commit for my project, and that is revision N, then if
someone immediately makes a commit for a totally different project, that
would be N+1?
I thought only the Incubator worked like that. Seems really bizzare to me
as an ASF newbie
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM, N
> when [graduating] to a TLP, were you able to retain
> the history while working in the Incubator when you
> moved to an SVN repo of your own?
You don't move to an SVN repo of your own. You stay in the main ASF
repository, along with all other ASF projects and other public content.
---
This brings up a follow-up question - when Wicket graduated to a TLP, were
you able to retain the history while working in the Incubator when you moved
to an SVN repo of your own?
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Marti
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Martijn Dashorst <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Can you provide one example? Just curious
> >
> > While it was incubating, Wicket did a few non-ASF releases on their
> > old
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> it really is a problem IMO when incoming *open source*
> projects have to ditch their collected history. If we
> care about code provenance, having the full history
> available is best.
I concur, although I'm not sure that everyone does.
--- Noel
-
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> While it was incubating, Wicket did a few non-ASF releases on their
> old project site, to minimize disruption for their existing users
> while they were repackaging and cleaning up for an ASF release.
If I recall correctly, the first project that had to address this
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can you provide one example? Just curious
>
> While it was incubating, Wicket did a few non-ASF releases on their
> old project site, to minimize disruption for their existing users
> while they were repackagin
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Follow-on releases can similarly be built from code checked into the
Apache repository. They just cannot be called "Apache anything". And
On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Some things to consider in this discussion:
- The 0.9.0 release cannot be performed off of the c
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Some things to consider in this discussion:
- The 0.9.0 release cannot be performed off of the copy in ASF
- The 0.9.0 or earlier releases cannot be suppo
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Alan,
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Some things to consider in this discussion:
- The 0.9.0 release cannot be performed off of the copy in ASF
- The 0.9.0 or earlier releases cannot be supported off of the copy
i
Hi Alan,
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Some things to consider in this discussion:
- The 0.9.0 release cannot be performed off of the copy in ASF
- The 0.9.0 or earlier releases cannot be supported off of the copy
in ASF
Maybe that's what everyone is thinking. I just
41 matches
Mail list logo
