You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jspwiki.apache.org by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com> on 2013/01/28 21:38:18 UTC
target for 2.9.1 release?
Hi,
2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
* requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
* ChangeLog published on site
* initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
* drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been ages
since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it safe
to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
* saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included in
2.9.1 are done"
br,
juan pablo
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
> I do think trying to salvage content from a wiki where both copyright
> and license are in question is always problematic. The only truly safe
> way around this would have been to have had a rights statement (e.g.,
> Creative Commons or similar) at the very beginning of the project,
> something explicitly stated an agreement upon any contributors
> permitting reuse. I don't think anyone could fault Janne for not
> having the extreme foresight to have done this at the very birth of
> the JSPWiki project.
Creative Commons didn't exist when I started ;-). Frankly, also, I don't really care. As far as I am concerned, worrying about the copyrights of contents on jspwiki.org is, what is succinctly known as "Someone Else's Problem."
> problematic. But if Janne is willing I don't think there'd be any issue
> in him simply selling the rights to Apache for $1, i.e., any legal
> handover would do.
I've already agreed to hand over jspwiki.org to ASF. Just someone tell me who takes it and I'll draw the dots and ink the i's (or whatever) to transfer the domain.
/Janne
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 07:25 PM, Ichiro Furusato wrote:
>>
>> Hi Glen,
>>
>> Unfortunately, from a legal perspective there is no ability to
>> differentiate what might be called "pure facts" from their expression,
>> and expressions are copyrighted.
>
> I can't see how that would be the case, for then there would be no benefit
> to making facts uncopyrightable
> (http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/not_copyrightable.htm). What you're saying
> is that if one newspaper writes "Bob Smith is the new Mayor", no other
> newspaper may write that sentence, because "Bob Smith is the new Mayor" is
> not just a fact (not copyrightable) but an expression (always
> copyrightable), completely defeating the purpose of not making facts
> copyrightable.
This is a straw man argument, a reductio ad absurdum. Nobody is
talking about copyrighting sentences. But taking a wiki page and
rewriting its content using different words would certainly hold as
plagiarism in any court, just as my rewriting of either Checkov or
Larry Wall's O'Reilly Perl book (even if I took out the religion). I
would be taking a copyrighted expression and re-expressing it,
which is a violation of copyright.
I think it's probably pertinent to point out that from a legal perspective,
a lawyer representing a client will always act in the most conservative
fashion in order to expose the client to minimal risk. In that sense,
Apache's legal team should likewise shy away from legal gray areas.
Content copied from a ambiguously-licensed web site would be very
grey.
"pure facts" or "ideas" cannot be copyrighted, but any expression of
them that could be construed as creative (such as how things are
stated) can be copyrighted. Anything "fixed in a tangible medium of
expression" can be copyrighted. After March 1, 1989 the explicit
labelling of a work with either a copyright statement or symbol was
no longer required. Works that are "fixed in a tangible medium of
expression" are *implicitly* copyrighted.
Think about this: technical documentation is baldly an expression
of "facts" about a product. If published in a book, the book is
implicitly copyrighted. As a PDF, it's implicitly copyrighted. On a
website, it's implicitly copyrighted. It's not the way that something
is transmitted but the creative act of *writing* the documentation
(expressing an idea) that is copyrighted. So, all of O'Reilly's books,
every single sentence, is implicitly copyrighted even if the publisher
neglected to put a copyright notice or symbol on the work.
'nuff said, anyway.
Ichiro
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
On 01/31/2013 07:25 PM, Ichiro Furusato wrote:
> Hi Glen,
>
> Unfortunately, from a legal perspective there is no ability to
> differentiate what might be called "pure facts" from their expression,
> and expressions are copyrighted.
I can't see how that would be the case, for then there would be no
benefit to making facts uncopyrightable
(http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/not_copyrightable.htm). What you're
saying is that if one newspaper writes "Bob Smith is the new Mayor", no
other newspaper may write that sentence, because "Bob Smith is the new
Mayor" is not just a fact (not copyrightable) but an expression (always
copyrightable), completely defeating the purpose of not making facts
copyrightable.
> Any attempt to extract "pure facts"
> from expression without proper license is called plagiarism.
Really? If the website says:
Britain's awesome capital is London!
*or*
The capital of the Great Britain is London.
And I write:
The capital of the Great Britain is London.
I can't see, in either case, how I've committed plagiarism.
However, I happily agree with your conclusion that you draw from your
view, namely, just starting fresh and new is best for us.
Quote: But if Janne is willing I don't think there'd be any issue in him
simply selling the rights to [the website to] Apache for $1, i.e., any
legal handover would do.
Perhaps a nice-to-have, but I don't believe Apache *must* have the
jspwiki.org site (Does Apache own any other non-Apache URL in that
manner?). Janne could probably just shut down the site (return the
domain to the ISP he bought it from), or if he wishes, replace it with a
blank page. I'm sure for lots of Apache products {productname}.com or
.net or .org will return 404s. "Buy up every URL containing the project
name" can't be part of the incubation-leaving process. But if Janne
wants to sell it to Apache, why not? Maybe he can get a pizza out of it...
Regards,
Glen
Ichiro
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the 20-60%
>> of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and see where
>> we are after that. At any rate, http://www.jspwiki.org/, as you describe
>> it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe we should just
>> shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything henceforth Apache
>> licensed), within a few to several months it will probably repopulate with
>> the most useful material that was on the old site anyway. I would suspect
>> pure facts from www.jspwiki.org *can* be transferred to the new site as
>> facts aren't copyrightable.
>>
>> Can the Commons-licensed http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ be donated to Apache or
>> does it have the same copyright problem as http://www.jspwiki.org/ ? It
>> would be nice if we could move http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ to the Apache
>> site.
>>
>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would
>> use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not
>> necessarily, Apache doesn't own www.chemistry.com, www.tomcat.com,
>> www.pig.com, www.chemistry.org, www.camel.com, and probably many others. I
>> think the main thing though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache
>> product. With the two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might
>> just be able to release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>>
>> Glen
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
On 01/31/2013 07:25 PM, Ichiro Furusato wrote:
> I think I've already mentioned that I'll be able to (on a time-available
> basis) be able to update the documentation for the wiki plugins that
> are being re-released under neocortext.net by myself and Murray Altheim.
> I would do that on the new wiki.
That would be nice, thanks! We appreciate your contributions.
Glen
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>.
Hi Glen,
Unfortunately, from a legal perspective there is no ability to
differentiate what might be called "pure facts" from their expression,
and expressions are copyrighted. Any attempt to extract "pure facts"
from expression without proper license is called plagiarism. If you
think about this in light of the history of authors copying content
from existing works and simply making grammatical changes, we should
probably not go down that road.
There's also the issue that there would have to be a judgement call
for every single instance of content (i.e., every single edit) from
the jspwiki.org site, which would take an impossible amount of time.
The CC-licensed http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ site, yes, that can be
reused without issue:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
The jspwiki.org site is labeled "Copyright © 2009 individual contributors."
If any of the original authors were to copy content they themselves
wrote off the old wiki onto the new wiki and were careful not to include
content written by others, while I would imagine the Apache Foundation's
lawyers would rightfully recommend against such practices, those authors
(the only potentially injured parties) would in theory be very unlikely
to be able to successfully sue the Apache Foundation for breach of
copyright given they were themselves the perpetrators of the act.
Perhaps a more productive approach would be for the new site to be
populated with new content relevant to the current code base. As you
say, there is a lot of outdated material on the current site, enough that
it's probably quite confusing to people. I was caught out recently trying
to set up security until I realised that I was working from outdated
documentation.
I think I've already mentioned that I'll be able to (on a time-available
basis) be able to update the documentation for the wiki plugins that
are being re-released under neocortext.net by myself and Murray Altheim.
I would do that on the new wiki. If those responsible for the various
managers and components of JSPWiki were to make a similar effort in
documenting them on the new wiki, we'd be a long way towards providing
relatively complete documentation. This would require people to actually
write documentation, which I likewise realise is a commitment of time
that might not be available.
I do think trying to salvage content from a wiki where both copyright
and license are in question is always problematic. The only truly safe
way around this would have been to have had a rights statement (e.g.,
Creative Commons or similar) at the very beginning of the project,
something explicitly stated an agreement upon any contributors
permitting reuse. I don't think anyone could fault Janne for not
having the extreme foresight to have done this at the very birth of
the JSPWiki project.
As to trademark issues, names are enforceable within a domain,
witness "apple" being trademarked separately within computing and
within music recording (of course, that got difficult when the former
began to encroach upon the territory of the latter). But JSPWiki is
a tradename that doesn't exist outside of computing, and both users
of the trademark would be within the same domain. So while Apache
doesn't own "camel.com, it's co-use of "JSPWiki" would likely be
problematic. But if Janne is willing I don't think there'd be any issue
in him simply selling the rights to Apache for $1, i.e., any legal
handover would do.
Ichiro
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the 20-60%
> of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and see where
> we are after that. At any rate, http://www.jspwiki.org/, as you describe
> it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe we should just
> shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything henceforth Apache
> licensed), within a few to several months it will probably repopulate with
> the most useful material that was on the old site anyway. I would suspect
> pure facts from www.jspwiki.org *can* be transferred to the new site as
> facts aren't copyrightable.
>
> Can the Commons-licensed http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ be donated to Apache or
> does it have the same copyright problem as http://www.jspwiki.org/ ? It
> would be nice if we could move http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ to the Apache
> site.
>
> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would
> use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not
> necessarily, Apache doesn't own www.chemistry.com, www.tomcat.com,
> www.pig.com, www.chemistry.org, www.camel.com, and probably many others. I
> think the main thing though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache
> product. With the two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might
> just be able to release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>
> Glen
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
As I probably mentioned before, I really wouldn't recommend any "Unless
otherwise noted"; if it's not Apache-licensed, we don't need it, and we
don't want anybody putting stuff up on our Wikis and then claiming their
own copyright. From day one, 100% Apache licensed, or don't give it to
us. The % of material on jspwiki.org that is both useful and not
present elsewhere (docs, Apache JSP website, our upcoming ASL-licensed
Wiki) is probably sitting at around 20-40% and will continue to fall
over time.
Where I work with Talend (as well as with competitor companies), we rely
on the Apache-licensed nature of the documentation (CXF, Karaf, Camel,
etc.) which allows us to comfortably incorporate the text into our own
documentation when making commercial wraps of the software. The
documentation loses much of its usefulness unless companies have the
full confidence that whatever they take, whereever, it's 100% ASL and
not littered with sometimes hard-to-see land mines of non-ASL material.
Strictly speaking, it's not necessary for us to take over jspwiki.org to
leave graduation--we can't be responsible for sites outside of our
control (again, jspwiki.org is Janne's "other hat", outside of the
control of the Apache JSPWiki team), any more than Apache Chemistry is
responsible for the presence of chemistry.org or chemistry.com. As far
as graduation is concerned, AFAICT all we need to do is remove the link
to jspwiki.org from the Apache JSPWiki site and that formally
disassociates ourselves from that site, we're done. (Actually, even
that might not be required.) In the unlikely event Apache Legal has a
problem with jspwiki.org cybersquatting then Legal can send a C&D letter
to Janne (of which I'm sure the latter would be only too thrilled to
comply :), but that has nothing to do with us for graduation purposes,
that's between Legal and Janne. jspwiki.org is loaded with unusable
"orphan works" and we can't be blamed for not wanting to incorporate it.
Again, I recommend Janne do (1) and (2) below -- put in a sentence
stressing the deprecated nature of jspwiki.org, refer people to Apache
JSPWiki, and remove the aforementioned left-side menu items appropriate
for a living project (cybersquatting concerns should be taken care of
right there.) Then he can keep that site open and read-only for as long
as *he* likes until *he* decides to retire it (i.e., have it return
404), I don't see it having many more months of useful shelf life. We
really don't need jspwiki.org anymore IMO.
Anyway, just my $0.02, I see nothing suggested as vetoable.
Glen
On 02/10/2013 04:56 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> Hi Glen,
>
> regarding the legal issue of doc, sandbox and www, maybe just changing the
> footer to something similar to:
>
> Unless otherwise noted, contributions to this wiki are licensed
> to the Apache Software Foundation as contributions under the
> Apache License, version 2.0.
>
> could be enough (cfr [#1], thread beginning in [#2]). Let's see legal's
> advice (especially for www).
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
> [#1]: http://s.apache.org/1pR
> [#2]: http://s.apache.org/Asl
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good, and thank you. I really want to return to coding right now
>> (in particular, that Maven pom file), but unfortunately have work
>> constraints ATM hopefully I can fix soon. Moving doc and sandbox to Apache
>> would be fantastic IMO, especially more so if the corresponding sites on
>> jspwiki.org can be shut down as a result--but we don't have any control
>> over jspwiki.org so we cannot be faulted over its contents (Janne has two
>> hats--Apache JSPWiki team member and that of jspwiki.org owner, but I'm
>> just referring to the first hat that all of us have.) My main concern
>> before doing so is, what do we need to do so that all the content on the
>> Wiki is immediately Apache-licensed, and that whatever anybody places there
>> automatically becomes Apache-licensed as well? The Confluence Wikis at
>> cxf.apache.org and camel.apache.org are instantly Apache-licensed--is
>> there some blurb on the Confluence Wikis we need to put on the JSPWikis to
>> ensure that?
>>
>> Glen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/10/2013 02:53 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> ok, retaking the original thread, I'm filling/updating relevant JIRAs now.
>>> Regarding Java 6 and dropping TranslatorReader I'll asume lazy consensus
>>> (=nobody has disagreed) and marking them for 2.9.1. I'll tackle them in a
>>> few days though, to give space to anyone not agreeing on targetting this
>>> for 2.9.1 release.
>>>
>>> As for the wikis location, how about moving doc and sandbox to apache
>>> infra? so we can request the VM, begin setting up the wikis etc. I'll also
>>> ping legal for the www.jspwiki.org issue
>>>
>>>
>>> br,
>>> juan pablo
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What I'm asking you to do could take as little as 15 minutes. Outside of
>>>> a sentence referring everyone to Apache JSPWiki, you're just *removing*
>>>> links, converting the site to a read-only legacy project page in the
>>>> process. If you wish to grant me write access temporarily to
>>>> jspwiki.org,
>>>> I'll happily get this done.
>>>>
>>>> The more you shrink this read-only site, the less there is to maintain
>>>> and
>>>> hence the less work you need to do for it. Continuing to maintain the
>>>> site
>>>> in a bloated state (do we really need links to dmoz and yahoo?) probably
>>>> is
>>>> what's causing you to want to run away from it.
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/03/2013 12:44 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will gladly send a tarball of the current wiki contents and transfer
>>>>> the domain to anyone who wants to pick up the site maintenance.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2013, at 15:10 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ? Rest assured,
>>>>>
>>>>>> there is no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> yesterday's lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look
>>>>>> at/discuss/ooh and aah it and can more clearly grasp what we need to
>>>>>> move
>>>>>> over. Especially since you are most knowledgable about what is no
>>>>>> longer
>>>>>> important. The first action on "How do we move 500K of text over?" is
>>>>>> "How
>>>>>> do we make it 200K of text?" It's harder to focus on the say 6 issues
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> matter if they must always be interspersed with 15 items nobody cares
>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there are two more changes needed for that site:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now
>>>>>> moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information
>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>> obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to stop
>>>>>> acting like it's the main website for JSPWiki.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu
>>>>>> items
>>>>>> (and their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly
>>>>>> give
>>>>>> the appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the latter
>>>>>> category have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki site:
>>>>>> News,
>>>>>> Recent Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel, Mailing List,
>>>>>> Weblog,
>>>>>> Getting Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs, Report new bug, New
>>>>>> Ideas?,
>>>>>> What's up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo. If there's any information
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> those pages that you would like to see moved first to the Apache site
>>>>>> (I
>>>>>> don't see any myself), we can keep those particular links until we
>>>>>> move the
>>>>>> data over. But for links for which you're in agreement with me are
>>>>>> obsolete, it would be great to delete them now so they don't continue
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> serve as distractions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to
>>>>>>> contribute to JSPWiki ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> see where we are after that. At any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us.
>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>> we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with
>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>> henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will
>>>>>>>> probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the
>>>>>>>> old site
>>>>>>>> anyway. I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org *can* be
>>>>>>>> transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.**j**spwiki.org/2.4/<http://jspwiki.org/2.4/>
>>>>>>>> <http://doc.**jspwiki.org/2.4/ <http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/>> be
>>>>>>>> donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp://
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could movehttp://
>>>>>>>> doc.jspwiki.org/2.**4/ <http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/> to the Apache
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache
>>>>>>>> would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the
>>>>>>>> domain." Not
>>>>>>>> necessarily, Apache doesn't ownwww.chemistry.com,www.**tom**cat.com<http://tomcat.com>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.tomcat.com>
>>>>>>>> ,www.pig.com,www.**chemistry.**org <http://chemistry.org> <
>>>>>>>> http://www.chemistry.org>,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> www.camel.com, and probably many others. I think the main thing
>>>>>>>> though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would
>>>>>>>>> use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I
>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>> recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF,
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if
>>>>>>>>> it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or
>>>>>>>>> wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed
>>>>>>>>> copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the
>>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>>> old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal
>>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering
>>>>>>>>> "hatching"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the
>>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>> site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key
>>>>>>>>>> due to
>>>>>>>>>> Finnish legal reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a
>>>>>>>>>> third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's
>>>>>>>>>> owned by a
>>>>>>>>>> JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the
>>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>> site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like
>>>>>>>>>> jspwiki.org.
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we
>>>>>>>>>> are *sooo*
>>>>>>>>>> much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other
>>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>> projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only
>>>>>>>>>> options are
>>>>>>>>>> (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2)
>>>>>>>>>> hosting our
>>>>>>>>>> documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however
>>>>>>>>>> unpleasant,
>>>>>>>>>> should be evaluated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>>>>>>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next
>>>>>>>>>>> April, so
>>>>>>>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske<
>>>>>>>>>>> harry.metske@gmail.com>****wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't stay in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>>>>>>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~15 fixed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>> outdated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ages
>>>>>>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi Glen,
regarding the legal issue of doc, sandbox and www, maybe just changing the
footer to something similar to:
Unless otherwise noted, contributions to this wiki are licensed
to the Apache Software Foundation as contributions under the
Apache License, version 2.0.
could be enough (cfr [#1], thread beginning in [#2]). Let's see legal's
advice (especially for www).
br,
juan pablo
[#1]: http://s.apache.org/1pR
[#2]: http://s.apache.org/Asl
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good, and thank you. I really want to return to coding right now
> (in particular, that Maven pom file), but unfortunately have work
> constraints ATM hopefully I can fix soon. Moving doc and sandbox to Apache
> would be fantastic IMO, especially more so if the corresponding sites on
> jspwiki.org can be shut down as a result--but we don't have any control
> over jspwiki.org so we cannot be faulted over its contents (Janne has two
> hats--Apache JSPWiki team member and that of jspwiki.org owner, but I'm
> just referring to the first hat that all of us have.) My main concern
> before doing so is, what do we need to do so that all the content on the
> Wiki is immediately Apache-licensed, and that whatever anybody places there
> automatically becomes Apache-licensed as well? The Confluence Wikis at
> cxf.apache.org and camel.apache.org are instantly Apache-licensed--is
> there some blurb on the Confluence Wikis we need to put on the JSPWikis to
> ensure that?
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> On 02/10/2013 02:53 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> ok, retaking the original thread, I'm filling/updating relevant JIRAs now.
>> Regarding Java 6 and dropping TranslatorReader I'll asume lazy consensus
>> (=nobody has disagreed) and marking them for 2.9.1. I'll tackle them in a
>> few days though, to give space to anyone not agreeing on targetting this
>> for 2.9.1 release.
>>
>> As for the wikis location, how about moving doc and sandbox to apache
>> infra? so we can request the VM, begin setting up the wikis etc. I'll also
>> ping legal for the www.jspwiki.org issue
>>
>>
>> br,
>> juan pablo
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What I'm asking you to do could take as little as 15 minutes. Outside of
>>> a sentence referring everyone to Apache JSPWiki, you're just *removing*
>>> links, converting the site to a read-only legacy project page in the
>>> process. If you wish to grant me write access temporarily to
>>> jspwiki.org,
>>> I'll happily get this done.
>>>
>>> The more you shrink this read-only site, the less there is to maintain
>>> and
>>> hence the less work you need to do for it. Continuing to maintain the
>>> site
>>> in a bloated state (do we really need links to dmoz and yahoo?) probably
>>> is
>>> what's causing you to want to run away from it.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/03/2013 12:44 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>
>>> I will gladly send a tarball of the current wiki contents and transfer
>>>> the domain to anyone who wants to pick up the site maintenance.
>>>>
>>>> /Janne
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 3, 2013, at 15:10 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ? Rest assured,
>>>>
>>>>> there is no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid
>>>>> of
>>>>> yesterday's lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look
>>>>> at/discuss/ooh and aah it and can more clearly grasp what we need to
>>>>> move
>>>>> over. Especially since you are most knowledgable about what is no
>>>>> longer
>>>>> important. The first action on "How do we move 500K of text over?" is
>>>>> "How
>>>>> do we make it 200K of text?" It's harder to focus on the say 6 issues
>>>>> that
>>>>> matter if they must always be interspersed with 15 items nobody cares
>>>>> about.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there are two more changes needed for that site:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now
>>>>> moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions
>>>>> of
>>>>> JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information
>>>>> becomes
>>>>> obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to stop
>>>>> acting like it's the main website for JSPWiki.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu
>>>>> items
>>>>> (and their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly
>>>>> give
>>>>> the appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the latter
>>>>> category have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki site:
>>>>> News,
>>>>> Recent Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel, Mailing List,
>>>>> Weblog,
>>>>> Getting Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs, Report new bug, New
>>>>> Ideas?,
>>>>> What's up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo. If there's any information
>>>>> on
>>>>> those pages that you would like to see moved first to the Apache site
>>>>> (I
>>>>> don't see any myself), we can keep those particular links until we
>>>>> move the
>>>>> data over. But for links for which you're in agreement with me are
>>>>> obsolete, it would be great to delete them now so they don't continue
>>>>> to
>>>>> serve as distractions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Glen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to
>>>>>> contribute to JSPWiki ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> see where we are after that. At any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/,
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us.
>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>> we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with
>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>> henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will
>>>>>>> probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the
>>>>>>> old site
>>>>>>> anyway. I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org *can* be
>>>>>>> transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.**j**spwiki.org/2.4/<http://jspwiki.org/2.4/>
>>>>>>> <http://doc.**jspwiki.org/2.4/ <http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/>> be
>>>>>>> donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp://
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could movehttp://
>>>>>>> doc.jspwiki.org/2.**4/ <http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/> to the Apache
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache
>>>>>>> would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the
>>>>>>> domain." Not
>>>>>>> necessarily, Apache doesn't ownwww.chemistry.com,www.**tom**cat.com<http://tomcat.com>
>>>>>>> <http://www.tomcat.com>
>>>>>>> ,www.pig.com,www.**chemistry.**org <http://chemistry.org> <
>>>>>>> http://www.chemistry.org>,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.camel.com, and probably many others. I think the main thing
>>>>>>> though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would
>>>>>>>> use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I
>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>> recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF,
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if
>>>>>>>> it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or
>>>>>>>> wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed
>>>>>>>> copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the
>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>> old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal
>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering
>>>>>>>> "hatching"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the
>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>> site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key
>>>>>>>>> due to
>>>>>>>>> Finnish legal reasons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a
>>>>>>>>> third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's
>>>>>>>>> owned by a
>>>>>>>>> JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the
>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>> site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like
>>>>>>>>> jspwiki.org.
>>>>>>>>> I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we
>>>>>>>>> are *sooo*
>>>>>>>>> much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other
>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>> projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only
>>>>>>>>> options are
>>>>>>>>> (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2)
>>>>>>>>> hosting our
>>>>>>>>> documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however
>>>>>>>>> unpleasant,
>>>>>>>>> should be evaluated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>>>>>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next
>>>>>>>>>> April, so
>>>>>>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske<
>>>>>>>>>> harry.metske@gmail.com>****wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we
>>>>>>>>>>> can't stay in
>>>>>>>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>>>>>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we
>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~15 fixed
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> also:
>>>>>>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being
>>>>>>>>>>>> outdated
>>>>>>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>>>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>>>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>>>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ages
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays,
>>>>>>>>>>>> is it
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good, and thank you. I really want to return to coding right now
(in particular, that Maven pom file), but unfortunately have work
constraints ATM hopefully I can fix soon. Moving doc and sandbox to
Apache would be fantastic IMO, especially more so if the corresponding
sites on jspwiki.org can be shut down as a result--but we don't have any
control over jspwiki.org so we cannot be faulted over its contents
(Janne has two hats--Apache JSPWiki team member and that of jspwiki.org
owner, but I'm just referring to the first hat that all of us have.) My
main concern before doing so is, what do we need to do so that all the
content on the Wiki is immediately Apache-licensed, and that whatever
anybody places there automatically becomes Apache-licensed as well? The
Confluence Wikis at cxf.apache.org and camel.apache.org are instantly
Apache-licensed--is there some blurb on the Confluence Wikis we need to
put on the JSPWikis to ensure that?
Glen
On 02/10/2013 02:53 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ok, retaking the original thread, I'm filling/updating relevant JIRAs now.
> Regarding Java 6 and dropping TranslatorReader I'll asume lazy consensus
> (=nobody has disagreed) and marking them for 2.9.1. I'll tackle them in a
> few days though, to give space to anyone not agreeing on targetting this
> for 2.9.1 release.
>
> As for the wikis location, how about moving doc and sandbox to apache
> infra? so we can request the VM, begin setting up the wikis etc. I'll also
> ping legal for the www.jspwiki.org issue
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What I'm asking you to do could take as little as 15 minutes. Outside of
>> a sentence referring everyone to Apache JSPWiki, you're just *removing*
>> links, converting the site to a read-only legacy project page in the
>> process. If you wish to grant me write access temporarily to jspwiki.org,
>> I'll happily get this done.
>>
>> The more you shrink this read-only site, the less there is to maintain and
>> hence the less work you need to do for it. Continuing to maintain the site
>> in a bloated state (do we really need links to dmoz and yahoo?) probably is
>> what's causing you to want to run away from it.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2013 12:44 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>
>>> I will gladly send a tarball of the current wiki contents and transfer
>>> the domain to anyone who wants to pick up the site maintenance.
>>>
>>> /Janne
>>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2013, at 15:10 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ? Rest assured,
>>>> there is no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid of
>>>> yesterday's lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look
>>>> at/discuss/ooh and aah it and can more clearly grasp what we need to move
>>>> over. Especially since you are most knowledgable about what is no longer
>>>> important. The first action on "How do we move 500K of text over?" is "How
>>>> do we make it 200K of text?" It's harder to focus on the say 6 issues that
>>>> matter if they must always be interspersed with 15 items nobody cares about.
>>>>
>>>> I think there are two more changes needed for that site:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now
>>>> moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions of
>>>> JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information becomes
>>>> obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to stop
>>>> acting like it's the main website for JSPWiki.
>>>>
>>>> 2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu items
>>>> (and their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly give
>>>> the appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the latter
>>>> category have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki site: News,
>>>> Recent Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel, Mailing List, Weblog,
>>>> Getting Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs, Report new bug, New Ideas?,
>>>> What's up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo. If there's any information on
>>>> those pages that you would like to see moved first to the Apache site (I
>>>> don't see any myself), we can keep those particular links until we move the
>>>> data over. But for links for which you're in agreement with me are
>>>> obsolete, it would be great to delete them now so they don't continue to
>>>> serve as distractions.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to
>>>>> contribute to JSPWiki ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the
>>>>>> 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and
>>>>>> see where we are after that. At any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/, as
>>>>>> you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe
>>>>>> we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything
>>>>>> henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will
>>>>>> probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the old site
>>>>>> anyway. I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org *can* be
>>>>>> transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.**jspwiki.org/2.4/<http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/> be donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp://
>>>>>> www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could movehttp://
>>>>>> doc.jspwiki.org/2.**4/ <http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/> to the Apache
>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache
>>>>>> would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not
>>>>>> necessarily, Apache doesn't ownwww.chemistry.com,www.**tomcat.com<http://www.tomcat.com>
>>>>>> ,www.pig.com,www.**chemistry.org <http://www.chemistry.org>,
>>>>>> www.camel.com, and probably many others. I think the main thing
>>>>>> though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With the
>>>>>> two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able to
>>>>>> release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would
>>>>>>> use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't
>>>>>>> recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or
>>>>>>> whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was
>>>>>>> that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if
>>>>>>> it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or
>>>>>>> wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed
>>>>>>> copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their
>>>>>>> server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of
>>>>>>> old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching"
>>>>>>>> out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache
>>>>>>>> site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to
>>>>>>>> Finnish legal reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a
>>>>>>>> third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a
>>>>>>>> JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an
>>>>>>>> Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should
>>>>>>>> have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache
>>>>>>>> site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org.
>>>>>>>> I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo*
>>>>>>>> much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache
>>>>>>>> projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are
>>>>>>>> (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our
>>>>>>>> documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant,
>>>>>>>> should be evaluated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>>>>>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>>>>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next
>>>>>>>>> April, so
>>>>>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>>>>>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske<
>>>>>>>>> harry.metske@gmail.com>**wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we
>>>>>>>>>> can't stay in
>>>>>>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>>>>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could
>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only
>>>>>>>>>>> ~15 fixed
>>>>>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>>>>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being
>>>>>>>>>>> outdated
>>>>>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's
>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ages
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays,
>>>>>>>>>>> is it
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be
>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
ok, retaking the original thread, I'm filling/updating relevant JIRAs now.
Regarding Java 6 and dropping TranslatorReader I'll asume lazy consensus
(=nobody has disagreed) and marking them for 2.9.1. I'll tackle them in a
few days though, to give space to anyone not agreeing on targetting this
for 2.9.1 release.
As for the wikis location, how about moving doc and sandbox to apache
infra? so we can request the VM, begin setting up the wikis etc. I'll also
ping legal for the www.jspwiki.org issue
br,
juan pablo
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'm asking you to do could take as little as 15 minutes. Outside of
> a sentence referring everyone to Apache JSPWiki, you're just *removing*
> links, converting the site to a read-only legacy project page in the
> process. If you wish to grant me write access temporarily to jspwiki.org,
> I'll happily get this done.
>
> The more you shrink this read-only site, the less there is to maintain and
> hence the less work you need to do for it. Continuing to maintain the site
> in a bloated state (do we really need links to dmoz and yahoo?) probably is
> what's causing you to want to run away from it.
>
> Glen
>
>
> On 02/03/2013 12:44 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>
>> I will gladly send a tarball of the current wiki contents and transfer
>> the domain to anyone who wants to pick up the site maintenance.
>>
>> /Janne
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2013, at 15:10 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ? Rest assured,
>>> there is no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid of
>>> yesterday's lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look
>>> at/discuss/ooh and aah it and can more clearly grasp what we need to move
>>> over. Especially since you are most knowledgable about what is no longer
>>> important. The first action on "How do we move 500K of text over?" is "How
>>> do we make it 200K of text?" It's harder to focus on the say 6 issues that
>>> matter if they must always be interspersed with 15 items nobody cares about.
>>>
>>> I think there are two more changes needed for that site:
>>>
>>> 1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now
>>> moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions of
>>> JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information becomes
>>> obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to stop
>>> acting like it's the main website for JSPWiki.
>>>
>>> 2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu items
>>> (and their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly give
>>> the appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the latter
>>> category have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki site: News,
>>> Recent Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel, Mailing List, Weblog,
>>> Getting Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs, Report new bug, New Ideas?,
>>> What's up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo. If there's any information on
>>> those pages that you would like to see moved first to the Apache site (I
>>> don't see any myself), we can keep those particular links until we move the
>>> data over. But for links for which you're in agreement with me are
>>> obsolete, it would be great to delete them now so they don't continue to
>>> serve as distractions.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Glen
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to
>>>> contribute to JSPWiki ;-)
>>>>
>>>> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved.
>>>>
>>>> /Janne
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the
>>>>> 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and
>>>>> see where we are after that. At any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/, as
>>>>> you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe
>>>>> we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything
>>>>> henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will
>>>>> probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the old site
>>>>> anyway. I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org *can* be
>>>>> transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.**jspwiki.org/2.4/<http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/> be donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp://
>>>>> www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could movehttp://
>>>>> doc.jspwiki.org/2.**4/ <http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/> to the Apache
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache
>>>>> would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not
>>>>> necessarily, Apache doesn't ownwww.chemistry.com,www.**tomcat.com<http://www.tomcat.com>
>>>>> ,www.pig.com,www.**chemistry.org <http://www.chemistry.org>,
>>>>> www.camel.com, and probably many others. I think the main thing
>>>>> though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With the
>>>>> two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able to
>>>>> release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would
>>>>>> use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't
>>>>>> recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or
>>>>>> whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was
>>>>>> that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if
>>>>>> it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or
>>>>>> wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed
>>>>>> copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their
>>>>>> server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of
>>>>>> old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching"
>>>>>>> out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache
>>>>>>> site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to
>>>>>>> Finnish legal reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a
>>>>>>> third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a
>>>>>>> JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an
>>>>>>> Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should
>>>>>>> have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache
>>>>>>> site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org.
>>>>>>> I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo*
>>>>>>> much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache
>>>>>>> projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are
>>>>>>> (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our
>>>>>>> documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant,
>>>>>>> should be evaluated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>>>>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>>>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next
>>>>>>>> April, so
>>>>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>>>>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske<
>>>>>>>> harry.metske@gmail.com>**wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we
>>>>>>>>> can't stay in
>>>>>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>>>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could
>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only
>>>>>>>>>> ~15 fixed
>>>>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>>>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being
>>>>>>>>>> outdated
>>>>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's
>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ages
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays,
>>>>>>>>>> is it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be
>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
What I'm asking you to do could take as little as 15 minutes. Outside
of a sentence referring everyone to Apache JSPWiki, you're just
*removing* links, converting the site to a read-only legacy project page
in the process. If you wish to grant me write access temporarily to
jspwiki.org, I'll happily get this done.
The more you shrink this read-only site, the less there is to maintain
and hence the less work you need to do for it. Continuing to maintain
the site in a bloated state (do we really need links to dmoz and yahoo?)
probably is what's causing you to want to run away from it.
Glen
On 02/03/2013 12:44 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> I will gladly send a tarball of the current wiki contents and transfer the domain to anyone who wants to pick up the site maintenance.
>
> /Janne
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 15:10 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ? Rest assured, there is no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid of yesterday's lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look at/discuss/ooh and aah it and can more clearly grasp what we need to move over. Especially since you are most knowledgable about what is no longer important. The first action on "How do we move 500K of text over?" is "How do we make it 200K of text?" It's harder to focus on the say 6 issues that matter if they must always be interspersed with 15 items nobody cares about.
>>
>> I think there are two more changes needed for that site:
>>
>> 1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions of JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information becomes obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to stop acting like it's the main website for JSPWiki.
>>
>> 2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu items (and their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly give the appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the latter category have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki site: News, Recent Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel, Mailing List, Weblog, Getting Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs, Report new bug, New Ideas?, What's up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo. If there's any information on those pages that you would like to see moved first to the Apache site (I don't see any myself), we can keep those particular links until we move the data over. But for links for which you're in agreement with me are obsolete, it would be great to delete them now so they don't continue to serve as distractions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Glen
>>
>>
>> On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki ;-)
>>>
>>> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved.
>>>
>>> /Janne
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and see where we are after that. At any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/, as you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the old site anyway. I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org *can* be transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>>>>
>>>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ be donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp://www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could movehttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ to the Apache site.
>>>>
>>>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not necessarily, Apache doesn't ownwww.chemistry.com,www.tomcat.com,www.pig.com,www.chemistry.org,www.camel.com, and probably many others. I think the main thing though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With the two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able to release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to Finnish legal reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant, should be evaluated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>>>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so
>>>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>>>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
>>>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske<ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
>>>>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
>>>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
>>>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been
>>>>>>>> ages
>>>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it
>>>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
I will gladly send a tarball of the current wiki contents and transfer the domain to anyone who wants to pick up the site maintenance.
/Janne
On Feb 3, 2013, at 15:10 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ? Rest assured, there is no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid of yesterday's lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look at/discuss/ooh and aah it and can more clearly grasp what we need to move over. Especially since you are most knowledgable about what is no longer important. The first action on "How do we move 500K of text over?" is "How do we make it 200K of text?" It's harder to focus on the say 6 issues that matter if they must always be interspersed with 15 items nobody cares about.
>
> I think there are two more changes needed for that site:
>
> 1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions of JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information becomes obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to stop acting like it's the main website for JSPWiki.
>
> 2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu items (and their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly give the appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the latter category have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki site: News, Recent Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel, Mailing List, Weblog, Getting Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs, Report new bug, New Ideas?, What's up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo. If there's any information on those pages that you would like to see moved first to the Apache site (I don't see any myself), we can keep those particular links until we move the data over. But for links for which you're in agreement with me are obsolete, it would be great to delete them now so they don't continue to serve as distractions.
>
> Regards,
> Glen
>
>
> On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki ;-)
>>
>> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved.
>>
>> /Janne
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and see where we are after that. At any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/, as you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the old site anyway. I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org *can* be transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>>>
>>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ be donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp://www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could movehttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ to the Apache site.
>>>
>>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not necessarily, Apache doesn't ownwww.chemistry.com,www.tomcat.com,www.pig.com,www.chemistry.org,www.camel.com, and probably many others. I think the main thing though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With the two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able to release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>>>>
>>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
>>>>
>>>> /Janne
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to Finnish legal reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant, should be evaluated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so
>>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
>>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> br,
>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske<ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
>>>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
>>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
>>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
>>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been
>>>>>>> ages
>>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it
>>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
"I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ? Rest assured,
there is no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid
of yesterday's lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look
at/discuss/ooh and aah it and can more clearly grasp what we need to
move over. Especially since you are most knowledgable about what is no
longer important. The first action on "How do we move 500K of text
over?" is "How do we make it 200K of text?" It's harder to focus on the
say 6 issues that matter if they must always be interspersed with 15
items nobody cares about.
I think there are two more changes needed for that site:
1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now
moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions
of JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information
becomes obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to
stop acting like it's the main website for JSPWiki.
2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu items
(and their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly
give the appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the
latter category have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki
site: News, Recent Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel,
Mailing List, Weblog, Getting Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs,
Report new bug, New Ideas?, What's up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo.
If there's any information on those pages that you would like to see
moved first to the Apache site (I don't see any myself), we can keep
those particular links until we move the data over. But for links for
which you're in agreement with me are obsolete, it would be great to
delete them now so they don't continue to serve as distractions.
Regards,
Glen
On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki ;-)
>
> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved.
>
> /Janne
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and see where we are after that. At any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/, as you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the old site anyway. I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org *can* be transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>>
>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ be donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp://www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could movehttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ to the Apache site.
>>
>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not necessarily, Apache doesn't ownwww.chemistry.com,www.tomcat.com,www.pig.com,www.chemistry.org,www.camel.com, and probably many others. I think the main thing though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With the two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able to release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>>>
>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
>>>
>>> /Janne
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to Finnish legal reasons.
>>>>
>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant, should be evaluated.
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so
>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> br,
>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske<ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
>>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been
>>>>>> ages
>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it
>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki ;-)
The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved.
/Janne
On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and see where we are after that. At any rate, http://www.jspwiki.org/, as you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the old site anyway. I would suspect pure facts from www.jspwiki.org *can* be transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>
> Can the Commons-licensed http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ be donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem as http://www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could move http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ to the Apache site.
>
> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not necessarily, Apache doesn't own www.chemistry.com, www.tomcat.com, www.pig.com, www.chemistry.org, www.camel.com, and probably many others. I think the main thing though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With the two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able to release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>>
>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
>>
>> /Janne
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to Finnish legal reasons.
>>>
>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant, should be evaluated.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>>
>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so
>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> br,
>>>> juan pablo
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>
>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>> Harry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been
>>>>> ages
>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it
>>>>> safe
>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included
>>>>> in
>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> br,
>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the
20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and
see where we are after that. At any rate, http://www.jspwiki.org/, as
you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us.
Maybe we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with
everything henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months
it will probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on
the old site anyway. I would suspect pure facts from www.jspwiki.org
*can* be transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
Can the Commons-licensed http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ be donated to
Apache or does it have the same copyright problem as
http://www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could move
http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ to the Apache site.
Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache
would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain."
Not necessarily, Apache doesn't own www.chemistry.com, www.tomcat.com,
www.pig.com, www.chemistry.org, www.camel.com, and probably many
others. I think the main thing though is that the site can't act like
it's the Apache product. With the two sites above shut down or moved to
Apache, you might just be able to release the domain instead of giving
it to Apache.
Glen
On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>
> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
>
> /Janne
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to Finnish legal reasons.
>>
>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant, should be evaluated.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so
>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>
>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>
>>>
>>> br,
>>> juan pablo
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>
>>>> kind regards,
>>>> Harry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>
>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been
>>>> ages
>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it
>>>> safe
>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>
>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included
>>>> in
>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> br,
>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
/Janne
On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to Finnish legal reasons.
>
> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant, should be evaluated.
>
> Glen
>
> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so
>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>
>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>
>>
>> br,
>> juan pablo
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
>>> the incubator forever...
>>>
>>> kind regards,
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>
>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>
>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been
>>> ages
>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it
>>> safe
>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>
>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included
>>> in
>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> br,
>>>> juan pablo
>>>>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out
of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache
site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to
Finnish legal reasons.
We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a
third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by
a JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an
Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should
have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache
site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I
would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo*
much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other
Apache projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only
options are (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or
(2) hosting our documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2),
however unpleasant, should be evaluated.
Glen
On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> Hi!
>
> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so
> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>
> @mentors, WDYT?
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
>> the incubator forever...
>>
>> kind regards,
>> Harry
>>
>>
>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>
>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>
>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been
>> ages
>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it
>> safe
>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>
>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included
>> in
>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>
>>>
>>> br,
>>> juan pablo
>>>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi!
all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so
arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
@mentors, WDYT?
br,
juan pablo
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
> +1
>
> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
> the incubator forever...
>
> kind regards,
> Harry
>
>
> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
> > 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
> >
> > 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
> > issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
> > * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
> > this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
> > * ChangeLog published on site
> > * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
> > * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
> >
> > The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been
> ages
> > since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it
> safe
> > to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
> >
> > * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included
> in
> > 2.9.1 are done"
> >
> >
> > br,
> > juan pablo
> >
>
Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
+1
but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay in
the incubator forever...
kind regards,
Harry
On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release
> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>
> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed
> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also:
> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated
> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
> * ChangeLog published on site
> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>
> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been ages
> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it safe
> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>
> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included in
> 2.9.1 are done"
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>