You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tamaya.apache.org by jm...@apache.org on 2020/01/16 00:27:17 UTC
Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Dear podling,
This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to
prepare your quarterly board report.
The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 February 2020, 10:30 am PDT.
The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
submission (Wed, February 05).
Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator
PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the
very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board
meeting.
Candidate names should not be made public before people are actually
elected, so please do not include the names of potential committers or
PPMC members in your report.
Thanks,
The Apache Incubator PMC
Submitting your Report
----------------------
Your report should contain the following:
* Your project name
* A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of
the project or necessarily of its field
* A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
towards graduation.
* Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
aware of
* How has the community developed since the last report
* How has the project developed since the last report.
* How does the podling rate their own maturity.
This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/February2020
Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before
this page is created from a template.
Note: The format of the report has changed to use markdown.
Mentors
-------
Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on
the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are
following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms
for the Incubator PMC.
Incubator PMC
Re: Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder -
February 2020)
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
Hi Anatole,
Thanks for the update, also about your future career step. Congratulations
on moving to IBM soon.
As we discussed, an incubating project does not get archived, but simply
deleted by Apache, correct me if I got that wrong?
So 1) would delete and destroy all of it. There may not be too many real
life use cases in production right now, but it demonstrated a few aspects
that e.g. Microprofile Config and other (not so cloud aware) config
solutions are still missing
2) there seems nothing wrong with that, and the GH organization you
(Anatole) already created could be used for that.
There is a very outdated fork of Tamaya
https://github.com/java-config/incubator-tamaya (which would not go away
even if the repo at Apache did;-)
and the "seed" for Tamaya: https://github.com/java-config/tamaya-export
Based on my experience I would at least declare the latter as archived and
make it read-only in GitHub (could you do that please or offer admin rights
to others in the organization?)
So maybe prior to ASF pulling the plug a "dump" may be created, but ideally
it should not be a fork but also migrated elsewhere. Reza (not the Jakarta
EE Ambassador) who also helped weather.com use OpenDDR/Devicemap (it's now
owned by IBM, but not sure, if it still uses W3C DDR or other device
recognition) forked the DeviceMap Java client to
https://github.com/TextGlass/java of course, it never saw any contributions
after 2015, so it's dead while OpenDDR data was downloaded around 150.000
times last year after more than twice that in 2018.
Unless we got a domain like javaconfig.org, we could always use
io.github.javaconfig.
Option 3) I am not sure, if e.g. the Apache Commons Config team was
interested, that is the only place I could see where parts of Tamaya may be
of interest.
Werner
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 11:28 PM Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> as you all know I also started the discussion about Tamaya's future.
> Background is that I will move to IBM end of April 2020 and start as a
> Cloud Consultant. So I will not have too much time left for doing
> Java/programming.
> That does not mean that I would like to abandon this project completely,
> but for me it makes no sense keeping it up running in the current mode,
> unless some people really start to get into the code as well (it is not
> that complicated mostly).Moving it to GitHub does not solve the community
> issue, that is correct, but objective of the incubator is to build up a
> community, which I think was not possible. So I basically see the following
> options:
>
> 1) Retire everything (RIP)
> 2) Move everything to GitHub and see how things evolve.
> 3) See if the core part/API can be moved as a subproject somewhere in
> Apache and move the extensions to GitHub.
>
> J Anatole
>
>
> Am Mo., 10. Feb. 2020 um 22:46 Uhr schrieb P. Ottlinger <
> pottlinger@apache.org>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 10.02.20 um 22:29 schrieb Oliver B. Fischer:
> > > But looking at the number of commits, Tamaya is dying.
> >
> > LOL - Anatole is and was the main contributor and committer -
> > this did not change over the period Tamaya is in incubating mode, IMHO.
> >
> > > What do you thing, does Tamaya currently provides anything usefull for
> > > users what is not provided by other frameworks?
> >
> > Most useful is a broad variety of extensions that allow Tamaya to be
> > used in various circumstances/environments - to my mind that's the
> > biggest pro.
> >
> > But we didn't gain any momentum to let the world know of this cool
> feature.
> >
> > Moving it to Github would only stop the ASF reporting schedule but does
> > not address the issue of a viable future.
> >
> > Just my 2ct,
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
>
> --
> *Anatole Tresch*
> PPMC Member Apache Tamaya
> JCP Star Spec Lead
> *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1*
> *maketechsimple.wordpress.com <http://maketechsimple.wordpress.com/> *
> *Twitter: @atsticks, @tamayaconf*
>
Re: Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder -
February 2020)
Posted by Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>.
Hi all
as you all know I also started the discussion about Tamaya's future.
Background is that I will move to IBM end of April 2020 and start as a
Cloud Consultant. So I will not have too much time left for doing
Java/programming.
That does not mean that I would like to abandon this project completely,
but for me it makes no sense keeping it up running in the current mode,
unless some people really start to get into the code as well (it is not
that complicated mostly).Moving it to GitHub does not solve the community
issue, that is correct, but objective of the incubator is to build up a
community, which I think was not possible. So I basically see the following
options:
1) Retire everything (RIP)
2) Move everything to GitHub and see how things evolve.
3) See if the core part/API can be moved as a subproject somewhere in
Apache and move the extensions to GitHub.
J Anatole
Am Mo., 10. Feb. 2020 um 22:46 Uhr schrieb P. Ottlinger <
pottlinger@apache.org>:
> Hi,
>
> Am 10.02.20 um 22:29 schrieb Oliver B. Fischer:
> > But looking at the number of commits, Tamaya is dying.
>
> LOL - Anatole is and was the main contributor and committer -
> this did not change over the period Tamaya is in incubating mode, IMHO.
>
> > What do you thing, does Tamaya currently provides anything usefull for
> > users what is not provided by other frameworks?
>
> Most useful is a broad variety of extensions that allow Tamaya to be
> used in various circumstances/environments - to my mind that's the
> biggest pro.
>
> But we didn't gain any momentum to let the world know of this cool feature.
>
> Moving it to Github would only stop the ASF reporting schedule but does
> not address the issue of a viable future.
>
> Just my 2ct,
>
> Phil
>
>
--
*Anatole Tresch*
PPMC Member Apache Tamaya
JCP Star Spec Lead
*Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1*
*maketechsimple.wordpress.com <http://maketechsimple.wordpress.com/> *
*Twitter: @atsticks, @tamayaconf*
Re: Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder -
February 2020)
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
I guess John knows best, what happens when you're no longer able to
contribute to a project:
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-rest-client/graphs/contributors If
it wasn't for IBM then MP Rest Client would be dead after he stopped
working on it around 2 years ago.
Same for Config btw
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-config/graphs/contributors but at
least Emily/IBM also helped out here a bit recently.
Whether MP Config really has a chance of becoming an integral part of
Jakarta EE (which would be a key to further participation and success)
remains to be seen, but it is a possible place to continue contributing if
Tamaya was to stop.
I mentioed others, Helidon
https://github.com/oracle/helidon/graphs/contributors is clearly a huge
success and an active community also with an interesting and promising
configuration module...
Werner
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:46 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 10.02.20 um 22:29 schrieb Oliver B. Fischer:
> > But looking at the number of commits, Tamaya is dying.
>
> LOL - Anatole is and was the main contributor and committer -
> this did not change over the period Tamaya is in incubating mode, IMHO.
>
> > What do you thing, does Tamaya currently provides anything usefull for
> > users what is not provided by other frameworks?
>
> Most useful is a broad variety of extensions that allow Tamaya to be
> used in various circumstances/environments - to my mind that's the
> biggest pro.
>
> But we didn't gain any momentum to let the world know of this cool feature.
>
> Moving it to Github would only stop the ASF reporting schedule but does
> not address the issue of a viable future.
>
> Just my 2ct,
>
> Phil
>
>
Re: Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder -
February 2020)
Posted by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Am 10.02.20 um 22:29 schrieb Oliver B. Fischer:
> But looking at the number of commits, Tamaya is dying.
LOL - Anatole is and was the main contributor and committer -
this did not change over the period Tamaya is in incubating mode, IMHO.
> What do you thing, does Tamaya currently provides anything usefull for
> users what is not provided by other frameworks?
Most useful is a broad variety of extensions that allow Tamaya to be
used in various circumstances/environments - to my mind that's the
biggest pro.
But we didn't gain any momentum to let the world know of this cool feature.
Moving it to Github would only stop the ASF reporting schedule but does
not address the issue of a viable future.
Just my 2ct,
Phil
Re: Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder -
February 2020)
Posted by "Oliver B. Fischer" <o....@swe-blog.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Interessting - my commits vanished ;-|
But looking at the number of commits, Tamaya is dying.
What do you thing, does Tamaya currently provides anything usefull for
users what is not provided by other frameworks?
Oliver
Am 10.02.20 um 22:12 schrieb Werner Keil:
> I think this shows that best:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tamaya/graphs/contributors
>
> Werner
>
>
- --
N Oliver B. Fischer
A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
P +49 30 44793251
M +49 178 7903538
E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
S oliver.b.fischer
J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
X http://xing.to/obf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=vf/d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder -
February 2020)
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
I think this shows that best:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tamaya/graphs/contributors
Werner
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:06 PM Oliver B. Fischer <o....@swe-blog.net>
wrote:
> And who is currently the most active contributer?
>
> Am 10.02.20 um 21:00 schrieb P. Ottlinger:
> > Hi *,
> >
> > Am 10.02.20 um 16:11 schrieb Oliver B. Fischer:
> >> who would describe themselves as an active committer?
> > Although I do not contribute that much code I'd consider myself an
> > active committer.
> >
> > @John: the release is officially out, we just did not announce it
> > properly due to the fact that we seem to lack a big community.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Phil
>
> --
> N Oliver B. Fischer
> A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
> P +49 30 44793251
> M +49 178 7903538
> E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
> S oliver.b.fischer
> J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
> X http://xing.to/obf
>
>
>
Re: Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder -
February 2020)
Posted by "Oliver B. Fischer" <o....@swe-blog.net>.
And who is currently the most active contributer?
Am 10.02.20 um 21:00 schrieb P. Ottlinger:
> Hi *,
>
> Am 10.02.20 um 16:11 schrieb Oliver B. Fischer:
>> who would describe themselves as an active committer?
> Although I do not contribute that much code I'd consider myself an
> active committer.
>
> @John: the release is officially out, we just did not announce it
> properly due to the fact that we seem to lack a big community.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
--
N Oliver B. Fischer
A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
P +49 30 44793251
M +49 178 7903538
E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
S oliver.b.fischer
J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
X http://xing.to/obf
Re: Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder -
February 2020)
Posted by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>.
Hi *,
Am 10.02.20 um 16:11 schrieb Oliver B. Fischer:
> who would describe themselves as an active committer?
Although I do not contribute that much code I'd consider myself an
active committer.
@John: the release is officially out, we just did not announce it
properly due to the fact that we seem to lack a big community.
Cheers,
Phil
Re: Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder -
February 2020)
Posted by "Oliver B. Fischer" <o....@swe-blog.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
who would describe themselves as an active committer?
Bye,
Oliver
Am 10.02.20 um 15:56 schrieb John D. Ament:
> Hey guys
>
> I signed off on the report. I'd really like to ensure that you figure
out what your path forward is going to be. Activity is low, there was a
release started end of last year that it's not clear was ever finished up.
>
> If interest is low enough, moving to github is a fine approach.
Typically keeping the name isn't a problem so your existing name could
be reused.
>
> Typically a project would take this approach if they thought getting
releases out more frequently could help them rebuild a community around
a project.
>
> John
>
>
>>
- --
N Oliver B. Fischer
A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
P +49 30 44793251
M +49 178 7903538
E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
S oliver.b.fischer
J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
X http://xing.to/obf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=mBLo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tamaya's Future (was Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Hey guys
I signed off on the report. I'd really like to ensure that you figure out what your path forward is going to be. Activity is low, there was a release started end of last year that it's not clear was ever finished up.
If interest is low enough, moving to github is a fine approach. Typically keeping the name isn't a problem so your existing name could be reused.
Typically a project would take this approach if they thought getting releases out more frequently could help them rebuild a community around a project.
John
On 2020/02/03 21:27:23, "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> following our discussions I submitted our February report
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/February2020#tamaya
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
>
> Am 16.01.20 um 01:27 schrieb jmclean@apache.org:
> > Dear podling,
> >
> > This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
> > Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to
> > prepare your quarterly board report.
> >
> > The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 February 2020, 10:30 am PDT.
> > The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
> > report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
> > before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
> > submission (Wed, February 05).
> >
> > Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator
> > PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the
> > very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board
> > meeting.
> >
> > Candidate names should not be made public before people are actually
> > elected, so please do not include the names of potential committers or
> > PPMC members in your report.
>
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>.
Hi guys,
following our discussions I submitted our February report
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/February2020#tamaya
Cheers,
Phil
Am 16.01.20 um 01:27 schrieb jmclean@apache.org:
> Dear podling,
>
> This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
> Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to
> prepare your quarterly board report.
>
> The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 February 2020, 10:30 am PDT.
> The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
> report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
> before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
> submission (Wed, February 05).
>
> Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator
> PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the
> very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board
> meeting.
>
> Candidate names should not be made public before people are actually
> elected, so please do not include the names of potential committers or
> PPMC members in your report.
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by Julian Feinauer <j....@pragmaticminds.de>.
Hi,
I suggest to add it, but its not mandatory, I guess.
Julian
Am 26.01.20, 21:04 schrieb "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>:
Hi everyone,
should we add our discussion to the February report? Or just add a
sidenote (apart from releasing 0.4) that there are discussion about the
project's future?
Thanks,
Phil
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>.
Hi everyone,
should we add our discussion to the February report? Or just add a
sidenote (apart from releasing 0.4) that there are discussion about the
project's future?
Thanks,
Phil
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Yes, OpenDDR and its interim attempt at Apache did graduate, but it had
quite a bit of momentum after the creators of WURFL defrauded the community
of their contributions and it is still relatively unique in that space at
least as an open alternative.
Tamaya never had that unique standpoint because many competing solutions
exist.
One alternative to preserve the codebase might be to simply put it back to
the Github organization Anatole created.
Another possible place that sounds more suitable for a "Cloud Native" or
Microservice effort (sorry but except Big Data where it's quite strong
Apache just list in most of these other areas like IoT / Edge, Cloud Native
or Automotive) would be the CNCF.
While it has often half a dozen competing monitoring projects, the only
ones that are related to a Config store would be etcd or TiKV, but both
describe themselves as "NoSQL" storage, so they're not just for
configuration.
The CNCF has a more open and flexible "sandbox" phase for projects before
they even start incubating. Depending on the brand protection for incubator
projects (even Jakarta was made available to another community ;-) the name
Tamaya might be carried somewhere else. And at least right now there is no
dedicated configuration project covering what e.G. Archaius did.
It is still in an early phase but once the proposed Eclipse CN4J (Cloud
Native 4 Java) WG was formed, it might also be an alternative for a project
mostly for the JVM.
Werner
Julian Feinauer <j....@pragmaticminds.de> schrieb am Mi., 22. Jan.
2020, 08:07:
> Hi all,
>
> thanks for putting this discussion up ( I also started a similar one on
> private which did not gain traction at all but I think its better to
> discuss it here, either way).
> For podlings there is no such thing as the attic so the natural way would
> be to move it over to Github and we could simplay grant full access to all
> current PPMC members.
>
> This would not change anything, I guess as we would still be able to make
> releases (under github not ASF Policy then) and keep on working but as the
> github infra is quite nice (with issues and wiki and all) I don’t think
> that it would suffer much.
>
> My honest opinion is that it will be extremely hard to get this podling to
> graduate anytime soon and that I currently don’t see that. So this could be
> a valid alternative.
>
> But ofc that’s just my opinion.
>
> Julian
>
> Am 19.01.20, 21:41 schrieb "Werner Keil" <we...@gmail.com>:
>
> Phil/all,
>
> Thanks for the discussion.
> I'm not sure, to what extent the ASF can really boost the project's
> popularity and adoption?
>
> There have been many uncertainties like the whole Config JSR issue,
> although that's now dead, but it still isn't completely sure, if
> MicroProfile Config would simply take its place or something inspired
> by it
> as well as other approaches like Oracle's Helidon?
> Most of it won't be effective until Jakarta EE 10, so another year
> since 9
> with its refactoring job isn't even scheduled, but it may come out
> around a
> year after Jakarta EE 8 (Sept '19) so with a possible annual release
> train
> like Eclipse had before this would be around Sep 2021 at the earliest.
>
> Until then the only thing would be to show TCK compatibility of MP
> Config
> and (not so different from Helidon) also provide some more powerful
> alternatives, including HOCON/Typesafe Config support.
>
> "Attic" isn't that where Tamaya would end up anyway, should it be
> discontinued?
> I can tell from the experience of OpenDDR - DeviceMap (which
> graduated) and
> back to its original brand, that this has not really hurt the project.
> On the contrary, while we did not track downloads much in 2017, the
> second
> half of 2018 alone (also did not watch it before) saw a massive boost
> in
> downloads of the "device data" artifact up to 500 or 600k in 2018.
> Last year it went back a bit, but it was still around 150k in 2019,
> roughly
> 10-12k per month on average (though it was not so evenly spread in
> reality)
> We could not get download stats from apache.org with the argument,
> that
> mirrors would not make that possible, so only the Maven repo downloads
> were
> available which never exceeded 200-250 in the peak days of Apache
> DeviceMap. Even in summer 2019 with a holiday gap OpenDDR data saw more
> downloads.
>
> As I have responsibilities for several Jakarta EE projects and the
> platform/Spec Committee, I also can't promise to contribute much.
>
> Beside Helidon which looks very healthy with steady contributions by
> Oracle
> and a few non-Oracle committers, Apache alone has 2 efforts:
> https://github.com/apache/commons-configuration (also extremely
> active and
> healthy)
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config an independent
> implementation of
> MP Config which seems practically abandoned for about a year, most
> likely
> because of several other implementations including SmallRye, Thorntail,
> Quarkus or Helidon.
>
> So I really can't say, if there is enough momentum to keep it alive in
> its
> current form. And simply putting it on GH, may not make much difference
> either.
>
> Which commercial clients are using Tamaya at the moment? And would they
> suffer, if it was archived as is?
>
> Looking at all the different MP implementations alone, not to mention
> their
> much bigger competitors like Spring or Micronaut (all of them contain
> configuration of their own) I am really skeptical, that it makes sense
> unless a major increase in contributors and contributions occur.
>
> Maybe it could be better for those with a vested interest in
> configuration
> to help either the mentioned Apache projects or the others outside ASF.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Werner
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 17.01.20 um 20:57 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> > > Honestly, I am opem to anything. Time actually is rare and I will
> not
> > have
> > > much in the next months either. We can think to move everything to
> GH and
> > > continue there as time allows...
> >
> > The disadvantage of that would be we loose the umbrella of ASF with
> all
> > its infrastructure and regulations /such as attic/.
> >
> > > There is not much innovation in this topic to ne expected either.
> > >
> > > Other opinions?
> >
> > If we graduate we need to establish some sort of momentum and
> definitely
> > need more contributions.
> >
> > Anatole and me not having that much time in the coming weeks means
> > roughly no changes at all ....
> >
> > What do other contributors/list members think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Phil
> >
>
>
>
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by Julian Feinauer <j....@pragmaticminds.de>.
Hi all,
thanks for putting this discussion up ( I also started a similar one on private which did not gain traction at all but I think its better to discuss it here, either way).
For podlings there is no such thing as the attic so the natural way would be to move it over to Github and we could simplay grant full access to all current PPMC members.
This would not change anything, I guess as we would still be able to make releases (under github not ASF Policy then) and keep on working but as the github infra is quite nice (with issues and wiki and all) I don’t think that it would suffer much.
My honest opinion is that it will be extremely hard to get this podling to graduate anytime soon and that I currently don’t see that. So this could be a valid alternative.
But ofc that’s just my opinion.
Julian
Am 19.01.20, 21:41 schrieb "Werner Keil" <we...@gmail.com>:
Phil/all,
Thanks for the discussion.
I'm not sure, to what extent the ASF can really boost the project's
popularity and adoption?
There have been many uncertainties like the whole Config JSR issue,
although that's now dead, but it still isn't completely sure, if
MicroProfile Config would simply take its place or something inspired by it
as well as other approaches like Oracle's Helidon?
Most of it won't be effective until Jakarta EE 10, so another year since 9
with its refactoring job isn't even scheduled, but it may come out around a
year after Jakarta EE 8 (Sept '19) so with a possible annual release train
like Eclipse had before this would be around Sep 2021 at the earliest.
Until then the only thing would be to show TCK compatibility of MP Config
and (not so different from Helidon) also provide some more powerful
alternatives, including HOCON/Typesafe Config support.
"Attic" isn't that where Tamaya would end up anyway, should it be
discontinued?
I can tell from the experience of OpenDDR - DeviceMap (which graduated) and
back to its original brand, that this has not really hurt the project.
On the contrary, while we did not track downloads much in 2017, the second
half of 2018 alone (also did not watch it before) saw a massive boost in
downloads of the "device data" artifact up to 500 or 600k in 2018.
Last year it went back a bit, but it was still around 150k in 2019, roughly
10-12k per month on average (though it was not so evenly spread in reality)
We could not get download stats from apache.org with the argument, that
mirrors would not make that possible, so only the Maven repo downloads were
available which never exceeded 200-250 in the peak days of Apache
DeviceMap. Even in summer 2019 with a holiday gap OpenDDR data saw more
downloads.
As I have responsibilities for several Jakarta EE projects and the
platform/Spec Committee, I also can't promise to contribute much.
Beside Helidon which looks very healthy with steady contributions by Oracle
and a few non-Oracle committers, Apache alone has 2 efforts:
https://github.com/apache/commons-configuration (also extremely active and
healthy)
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config an independent implementation of
MP Config which seems practically abandoned for about a year, most likely
because of several other implementations including SmallRye, Thorntail,
Quarkus or Helidon.
So I really can't say, if there is enough momentum to keep it alive in its
current form. And simply putting it on GH, may not make much difference
either.
Which commercial clients are using Tamaya at the moment? And would they
suffer, if it was archived as is?
Looking at all the different MP implementations alone, not to mention their
much bigger competitors like Spring or Micronaut (all of them contain
configuration of their own) I am really skeptical, that it makes sense
unless a major increase in contributors and contributions occur.
Maybe it could be better for those with a vested interest in configuration
to help either the mentioned Apache projects or the others outside ASF.
WDYT?
Werner
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 17.01.20 um 20:57 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> > Honestly, I am opem to anything. Time actually is rare and I will not
> have
> > much in the next months either. We can think to move everything to GH and
> > continue there as time allows...
>
> The disadvantage of that would be we loose the umbrella of ASF with all
> its infrastructure and regulations /such as attic/.
>
> > There is not much innovation in this topic to ne expected either.
> >
> > Other opinions?
>
> If we graduate we need to establish some sort of momentum and definitely
> need more contributions.
>
> Anatole and me not having that much time in the coming weeks means
> roughly no changes at all ....
>
> What do other contributors/list members think?
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
>
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
Phil/all,
Thanks for the discussion.
I'm not sure, to what extent the ASF can really boost the project's
popularity and adoption?
There have been many uncertainties like the whole Config JSR issue,
although that's now dead, but it still isn't completely sure, if
MicroProfile Config would simply take its place or something inspired by it
as well as other approaches like Oracle's Helidon?
Most of it won't be effective until Jakarta EE 10, so another year since 9
with its refactoring job isn't even scheduled, but it may come out around a
year after Jakarta EE 8 (Sept '19) so with a possible annual release train
like Eclipse had before this would be around Sep 2021 at the earliest.
Until then the only thing would be to show TCK compatibility of MP Config
and (not so different from Helidon) also provide some more powerful
alternatives, including HOCON/Typesafe Config support.
"Attic" isn't that where Tamaya would end up anyway, should it be
discontinued?
I can tell from the experience of OpenDDR - DeviceMap (which graduated) and
back to its original brand, that this has not really hurt the project.
On the contrary, while we did not track downloads much in 2017, the second
half of 2018 alone (also did not watch it before) saw a massive boost in
downloads of the "device data" artifact up to 500 or 600k in 2018.
Last year it went back a bit, but it was still around 150k in 2019, roughly
10-12k per month on average (though it was not so evenly spread in reality)
We could not get download stats from apache.org with the argument, that
mirrors would not make that possible, so only the Maven repo downloads were
available which never exceeded 200-250 in the peak days of Apache
DeviceMap. Even in summer 2019 with a holiday gap OpenDDR data saw more
downloads.
As I have responsibilities for several Jakarta EE projects and the
platform/Spec Committee, I also can't promise to contribute much.
Beside Helidon which looks very healthy with steady contributions by Oracle
and a few non-Oracle committers, Apache alone has 2 efforts:
https://github.com/apache/commons-configuration (also extremely active and
healthy)
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-config an independent implementation of
MP Config which seems practically abandoned for about a year, most likely
because of several other implementations including SmallRye, Thorntail,
Quarkus or Helidon.
So I really can't say, if there is enough momentum to keep it alive in its
current form. And simply putting it on GH, may not make much difference
either.
Which commercial clients are using Tamaya at the moment? And would they
suffer, if it was archived as is?
Looking at all the different MP implementations alone, not to mention their
much bigger competitors like Spring or Micronaut (all of them contain
configuration of their own) I am really skeptical, that it makes sense
unless a major increase in contributors and contributions occur.
Maybe it could be better for those with a vested interest in configuration
to help either the mentioned Apache projects or the others outside ASF.
WDYT?
Werner
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 17.01.20 um 20:57 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> > Honestly, I am opem to anything. Time actually is rare and I will not
> have
> > much in the next months either. We can think to move everything to GH and
> > continue there as time allows...
>
> The disadvantage of that would be we loose the umbrella of ASF with all
> its infrastructure and regulations /such as attic/.
>
> > There is not much innovation in this topic to ne expected either.
> >
> > Other opinions?
>
> If we graduate we need to establish some sort of momentum and definitely
> need more contributions.
>
> Anatole and me not having that much time in the coming weeks means
> roughly no changes at all ....
>
> What do other contributors/list members think?
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
>
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Am 17.01.20 um 20:57 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> Honestly, I am opem to anything. Time actually is rare and I will not have
> much in the next months either. We can think to move everything to GH and
> continue there as time allows...
The disadvantage of that would be we loose the umbrella of ASF with all
its infrastructure and regulations /such as attic/.
> There is not much innovation in this topic to ne expected either.
>
> Other opinions?
If we graduate we need to establish some sort of momentum and definitely
need more contributions.
Anatole and me not having that much time in the coming weeks means
roughly no changes at all ....
What do other contributors/list members think?
Cheers,
Phil
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>.
Honestly, I am opem to anything. Time actually is rare and I will not have
much in the next months either. We can think to move everything to GH and
continue there as time allows...
There is not much innovation in this topic to ne expected either.
Other opinions?
J Anatole
P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> schrieb am Do., 16. Jan. 2020, 23:36:
> Hi guys,
>
> anything noteworthy to report?
>
> The discussion I tried to start about the future of Tamaya did not yield
> any results yet .....
>
> @dev: any feelings about the future of Tamaya?
> We seem to lack new PMC members, committers and contributors for quite a
> while.
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
>
> Am 16.01.20 um 01:27 schrieb jmclean@apache.org:
> > The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 February 2020, 10:30 am PDT.
> > The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
> > report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
> > before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
> > submission (Wed, February 05).
>
> <snip>
>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/February2020
>
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by Aaron Coburn <ac...@apache.org>.
Since the last board report, 0.4-incubating was released. (That is a
noteworthy accomplishment!)
Aaron
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 17:36, P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> anything noteworthy to report?
>
> The discussion I tried to start about the future of Tamaya did not yield
> any results yet .....
>
> @dev: any feelings about the future of Tamaya?
> We seem to lack new PMC members, committers and contributors for quite a
> while.
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
>
> Am 16.01.20 um 01:27 schrieb jmclean@apache.org:
> > The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 February 2020, 10:30 am PDT.
> > The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
> > report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
> > before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
> > submission (Wed, February 05).
>
> <snip>
>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/February2020
>
Re: Podling Tamaya Report Reminder - February 2020
Posted by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>.
Hi guys,
anything noteworthy to report?
The discussion I tried to start about the future of Tamaya did not yield
any results yet .....
@dev: any feelings about the future of Tamaya?
We seem to lack new PMC members, committers and contributors for quite a
while.
Cheers,
Phil
Am 16.01.20 um 01:27 schrieb jmclean@apache.org:
> The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 February 2020, 10:30 am PDT.
> The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
> report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
> before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
> submission (Wed, February 05).
<snip>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/February2020