You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> on 2008/01/11 15:06:04 UTC
[S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Hi all,
Currently in the JDK 1.4 distribution, that contains backported Struts
2 artifacts, all the dependencies are added, while in release builds
only the backported artifacts (along with Retrotranslator runtime
libraries) are included.
What are your feelings? Do you think that adding dependencies in this
distributions is correct?
Notice that, in this case, the JDK1.4-compatible JARs must be used,
such as Tiles backported artifacts.
Thoughts?
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2008/1/12, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>:
> --- Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2008/1/12, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>:
> > > Personally I'd vote for just translating everything
> > What do you mean by "everything"?
>
> I was thinking primarily of the plugins.
Ok they are already added (obviously without their dependencies).
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
I would take this as a sign that they too are moving away from 1.4. I think
with 2.1 we have an oppertunity to make a clean break with a distinct change
in version number indicating a fair sized change in functionality.
As far as I've seen there are no plans for a 2.2, so we may find that by the
time we come to 2.2 release some of our dependancies may have already
dropped 1.4 support and we may end up mid 2.1 series with a choice of either
sticking with an older version of a dependancy to maintain 1.4 support or
ditching 1.4 support mid 2.1 in order to benefit from the bug fixes and
improvements in a new depencancy release, neither of which appeals.
-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Petrelli [mailto:antonio.petrelli@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 January 2008 18:35
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
2008/1/12, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>:
> Personally I'd vote for just translating everything
What do you mean by "everything"?
XWork, with 2.1.1 version, distributes a jdk14 version too in Maven
repository, so it can be included easily in the distribution.
Do you mean translated dependencies? The only one dependency that is
incompatible with jdk14 that I recall is Tiles (that provides
retrotranslated artifacts too in Maven repository).
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
--- Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/1/12, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>:
> > Personally I'd vote for just translating everything
> What do you mean by "everything"?
I was thinking primarily of the plugins.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2008/1/12, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>:
> Personally I'd vote for just translating everything
What do you mean by "everything"?
XWork, with 2.1.1 version, distributes a jdk14 version too in Maven
repository, so it can be included easily in the distribution.
Do you mean translated dependencies? The only one dependency that is
incompatible with jdk14 that I recall is Tiles (that provides
retrotranslated artifacts too in Maven repository).
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
--- Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/1/12, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>:
> > Most (all?) the issues I've seen are related to not
> > including enough translated jars, which is pretty easy to fix.
>
> This reminds me a thing: should we add the XWork retrotranslated
> package to the jdk14 distribution?
Personally I'd vote for just translating everything, but that adds yet more
size to the download.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2008/1/12, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>:
> Most (all?) the issues I've seen are related to not
> including enough translated jars, which is pretty easy to fix.
This reminds me a thing: should we add the XWork retrotranslated
package to the jdk14 distribution?
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
If we offer the J4 distribution and don't support it then it will tarnish
the struts reputation a bit (who can build a case for using something where
it's distributed from the main site but not fully supported).
I don't beleive we'll loose any audience, if people have built solutions
around a J4 struts 2.0 it will still exist, and I'm not suggesting dropping
it for 2.0, what I'm suggesting is for 2.1 move just to 5+.
It already been said that there aren't many J4 messages on the users list,
which may indicate there is a low deployment level. Maybe a poll of what
people are using would determine if J4 is in use, or whether we could
simplify distribution and support by dropping support for J4. At the end of
the day if someone says they're using S2, then I think it would be better to
have one version of S2 than have a J4 and non-J4 versions which would differ
in support for generics, and possibly in other areas.
-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Petrelli [mailto:antonio.petrelli@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 January 2008 17:25
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
2008/1/12, Tom Schneider <sc...@gmail.com>:
> I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having
> issues with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not) then
> we're obligated to assist that user.
Obligated? Come on we are all volunteers, we are not obliged to do
anything: we do it because we like what we do.
> Long term I
> think we will drop the 1.4 stuff at some point, it's just a matter of
> figuring out when.
I think that if we drop the 1.4 stuff, we lose a lot of audience.
> Another advantage is the builds become a bit simpler. (Or at least
> there's a chunk of the build that goes away)
Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On Jan 14, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Roughley <ia...@fdar.com> wrote:
>
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
> >> we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
> >> is saying that he or she intends to help support the release.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > No, it's not. That is a myth that you have been perpetuating for several
> > years now, but it's just not true, and quite frankly I'm fed up hearing
> it.
> >
> The bylaws seem to disagree, from
> http://struts.apache.org/dev/bylaws.html - " The act of voting carries
> certain obligations. Voters are not only stating their opinion, they are
> also agreeing to help do the work." Although, to me, "helping to do the
> work" is a little ambiguous and different from "supporting the build".
The wording in the bylaws is a compromise resulting from a previous
incarnation of this exact same discussion.
--
Martin Cooper
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Ian Roughley <ia...@fdar.com>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
>> we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
>> is saying that he or she intends to help support the release.
>>
>>
>
> No, it's not. That is a myth that you have been perpetuating for several
> years now, but it's just not true, and quite frankly I'm fed up hearing it.
>
The bylaws seem to disagree, from
http://struts.apache.org/dev/bylaws.html - " The act of voting carries
certain obligations. Voters are not only stating their opinion, they are
also agreeing to help do the work." Although, to me, "helping to do the
work" is a little ambiguous and different from "supporting the build".
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 3:47 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
>>> whoever they come from.
>> Well, I'm reading the bylaws right now:
>
> Yeah and missing the wood for the trees.
Not a fair comment Niall. All people have to go on is the stated policy
of a project, of which the bylaws are a primary part of. If they aren't
an accurate reflection of the reality, there's a problem. I'm not
missing a thing, except that Struts apparently has its bylaws, and then
they have another set of "bylaws" that are actually acted upon that live
in the minds of its developers and not in the written words of the
stated bylaws. I view this is a problem.
> Vetos need justification
> whoever they're from and it the justification is considered valid I'm
> sure it would be acted upon. +1s are easier to throw around, but I'm a
> whole lot happier the more I see, again whoever they're from.
I'm in complete agreement with that, and I have ZERO doubt that binding
voters taken non-binding votes into account.
> Hopefully (personal opinion coming here) people throwing a +1 on a
> release means they've at least checked out the distro and tested it in
> some way.
Also completely agree, doesn't matter where the +1 comes from, you'd
hope, and I'm relatively sure, that's usually the case.
> The fact that most votes I see is usually committers is
> disappointing and I think you're just contributing in this debate to
> putting off non-committers voting by telling them they have no value.
Absolutely not! Questioning something in a project in no way diminishes
the project, it in fact enhances it. That's what I'm doing here,
questioning and seeking clarification, which so far has been elusive. I
am in no way, shape or form telling anyone their vote has no value.
What I *AM* pointing out is that there is NO WAY TO KNOW who's vote
actually has value, and how much, because the written bylaws arguably do
not represent the reality... and I only say arguably because there's
discrepancy in whether they do apply or not, and what's been said in
this thread 100% supports that claim.
> Whatever the policy/by-laws/rules/admin says is it currently working -
> I would say so, except it would be nice to have more people voting.
Yes, it's working. But that's no guarantee it always will, and there's
nothing to say it couldn't work better. What I don't understand is why
there's any hesitation to get the bylaws inline with reality, whatever
that reality is. Isn't that the easy answer? Ends any debate between
Ted and Martin, shuts me up, and likely gets more people to vote because
they understand precisely what it means to do so. Forget any of the
specifics, why is that singular goal not desirable?
> Niall
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 16, 2008 3:47 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
> > whoever they come from.
>
> Well, I'm reading the bylaws right now:
Yeah and missing the wood for the trees. Vetos need justification
whoever they're from and it the justification is considered valid I'm
sure it would be acted upon. +1s are easier to throw around, but I'm a
whole lot happier the more I see, again whoever they're from.
Hopefully (personal opinion coming here) people throwing a +1 on a
release means they've at least checked out the distro and tested it in
some way. The fact that most votes I see is usually committers is
disappointing and I think you're just contributing in this debate to
putting off non-committers voting by telling them they have no value.
Whatever the policy/by-laws/rules/admin says is it currently working -
I would say so, except it would be nice to have more people voting.
Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [struts-dev] [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Dale Newfield <Da...@Newfield.org>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
> So you're saying that if a non-committer thinks a release looks OK,
...
> the appropriate thing to do would be to vote +0
I think that's a great idea -- I'm much more likely to feel comfortable
offering a vote as "just a community member" now that I realize "+0" (or
"-0" as the case may be) is a useful, concise, (and understandable)
expression that doesn't have strings attached. Once I've done that a
few times maybe I'll get up the nerve to vote with a different absolute
value. :-)
-Dale
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 16, 2008 6:28 AM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 16, 2008 6:24 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> > Martin Cooper wrote:
> > >> That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it.
> > >
> > > Of course you do. If you didn't, I'd think you'd gone on vacation or
> > > something. ;-)
> >
> > :)
> >
> > > So you're saying that if a non-committer thinks a release looks OK, a +1
> > > says just that and means nothing more,
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > whereas if a committer thinks it
> > > looks OK, they can't vote the same way unless they're committing to support
> > > it, and therefore cannot contribute to the binding vote count required for a
> > > release.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > But why would the non-committer vote in such an inconsistent way?
> > > Surely the appropriate thing to do would be to vote +0, which is what the
> > > committer would have to do in order to indicate that they thought the
> > > release looked OK but were not in a position to support it.
> >
> > No, because that would also imply that the non-binding +1 has the same
> > implied willingness to support (because otherwise there would be no
> > difference between 0 and +1), and I contend that *NO* non-binding vote
> > *EVER* carries that implication, as a binding vote does. Binding and
> > non-binding votes cannot be equated in any way other than the statement
> > about the fitness of the release, otherwise there would be no reason to
> > differentiate binding from non-binding votes in the first place. Any
> > meaning above and beyond fitness of release is the sole pervue of the
> > binding votes and voters.
> >
> > > In any case, I'm going to sign out of this discussion now, as I have enough
> > > to do keeping up with my day job, and don't feel the need to further defend
> > > my right to vote +1 as I feel appropriate.
> >
> > That's cool Martin, I'm bowing out now too. You've made your position
> > clear, and anyone can read it and make up their own mind about it. I'm
> > glad you got the chance to "defend your right", as you see it.
>
> For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
> whoever they come from.
+1 The binding/non-binding distinction is pretty much just for legal
and anti-jerk reasons in my book. Shouldn't be used to divide the
community. Really, when managing a release, i consider a non-binding
-1 (from a non-jerk, of course) as much of a showstopper as a binding
-1, why treat +1 differently? Doesn't seem like the Apache way to me.
> Niall
>
> > > Martin Cooper
> >
> > Frank
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
> whoever they come from.
Well, I'm reading the bylaws right now:
http://struts.apache.org/dev/bylaws.html
...and a couple of things stand out to me:
(1) It is specifically stated that the act of voting carries certain
obligations. Good.
(2) Much to my surprise, it does NOT seem to say that binding votes are
counted any differently than non-binding votes, only that binding votes
are cast by PMC Members, nor does it limit the obligation clause to
binding votes.
(3) +/-0 means no opinion, it doesn't mean "release is good but I will
not/cannot support it".
There are some contradictions and potential problems contained within
these bylaws as they are currently written given these points, and they
should IMO be addressed.
(1) If as you say Niall "votes are votes", then that SHOULD mean that
non-binding voters can veto a release, but the bylaws say differently:
"3 binding +1 votes" and "no binding vetos" is the benchmark to whether
a action passes or not. It doesn't say "3 +1 votes from anyone", nor
does it say "no vetos from anyone", it specifically spells out binding
votes. Non-binding votes are not officially considered in other words.
So, the bylaws pretty clearly make a differentiation between binding
and non-binding votes, regardless of what's in your book :).
Is anyone comfortable saying that non-committers/non-PMC members can
veto a release? I would think not, and therefore votes are NOT votes.
If everyone IS comfortable saying that, then great, I'm all for it, just
spell it out properly in the bylaws.
(2) Martin earlier contended that a PMC member should vote +0 if they
think the release should go but they do not intend or are unable to
support it. The bylaws say otherwise. They effectively say that ANY
vote carries the implication of "..agreeing to help do the work", which
has to include support because there's no limited definition of "the
work". This is true because this sentence:
"The act of voting carries certain obligations. Voters are not only
stating their opinion, they are also agreeing to help do the work."
...applies to ALL vote types (it doesn't say otherwise), and it is not
overridden in the definition of what each vote type means in the table
below it. Maybe some think that "do the work" only means apply the
patches and roll the release, but then that leaves support undefined,
which isn't good.
(3) There is an obligation on the part of ALL voters, that's clearly
stated. Let me be clear: I for one am OK with that, *IF* it's actually
the intent. But, if I had understood that before, I wouldn't have voted
+1 all those times frankly because as a non-project member I would not
have accepted any "obligation". I would have as a committer, but not as
an anonymous community member. I wonder how many non-members have voted
over the years and not understood they were accepting an "obligation"?
I seriously doubt everyone did.
I think these bylaws need to be clearer. It "votes are votes", as Niall
says, that's great, but let's make it crystal clear. If there's no
implied obligation of a +1 vote, as Martin contends, so be it, let's
make that crystal clear too.
> Niall
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 16, 2008 6:24 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> >> That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it.
> >
> > Of course you do. If you didn't, I'd think you'd gone on vacation or
> > something. ;-)
>
> :)
>
> > So you're saying that if a non-committer thinks a release looks OK, a +1
> > says just that and means nothing more,
>
> Yes.
>
> > whereas if a committer thinks it
> > looks OK, they can't vote the same way unless they're committing to support
> > it, and therefore cannot contribute to the binding vote count required for a
> > release.
>
> Yes.
>
> > But why would the non-committer vote in such an inconsistent way?
> > Surely the appropriate thing to do would be to vote +0, which is what the
> > committer would have to do in order to indicate that they thought the
> > release looked OK but were not in a position to support it.
>
> No, because that would also imply that the non-binding +1 has the same
> implied willingness to support (because otherwise there would be no
> difference between 0 and +1), and I contend that *NO* non-binding vote
> *EVER* carries that implication, as a binding vote does. Binding and
> non-binding votes cannot be equated in any way other than the statement
> about the fitness of the release, otherwise there would be no reason to
> differentiate binding from non-binding votes in the first place. Any
> meaning above and beyond fitness of release is the sole pervue of the
> binding votes and voters.
>
> > In any case, I'm going to sign out of this discussion now, as I have enough
> > to do keeping up with my day job, and don't feel the need to further defend
> > my right to vote +1 as I feel appropriate.
>
> That's cool Martin, I'm bowing out now too. You've made your position
> clear, and anyone can read it and make up their own mind about it. I'm
> glad you got the chance to "defend your right", as you see it.
For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
whoever they come from.
Niall
> > Martin Cooper
>
> Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
>> That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it.
>
> Of course you do. If you didn't, I'd think you'd gone on vacation or
> something. ;-)
:)
> So you're saying that if a non-committer thinks a release looks OK, a +1
> says just that and means nothing more,
Yes.
> whereas if a committer thinks it
> looks OK, they can't vote the same way unless they're committing to support
> it, and therefore cannot contribute to the binding vote count required for a
> release.
Yes.
> But why would the non-committer vote in such an inconsistent way?
> Surely the appropriate thing to do would be to vote +0, which is what the
> committer would have to do in order to indicate that they thought the
> release looked OK but were not in a position to support it.
No, because that would also imply that the non-binding +1 has the same
implied willingness to support (because otherwise there would be no
difference between 0 and +1), and I contend that *NO* non-binding vote
*EVER* carries that implication, as a binding vote does. Binding and
non-binding votes cannot be equated in any way other than the statement
about the fitness of the release, otherwise there would be no reason to
differentiate binding from non-binding votes in the first place. Any
meaning above and beyond fitness of release is the sole pervue of the
binding votes and voters.
> In any case, I'm going to sign out of this discussion now, as I have enough
> to do keeping up with my day job, and don't feel the need to further defend
> my right to vote +1 as I feel appropriate.
That's cool Martin, I'm bowing out now too. You've made your position
clear, and anyone can read it and make up their own mind about it. I'm
glad you got the chance to "defend your right", as you see it.
> Martin Cooper
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On Jan 15, 2008 9:23 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 10:40 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't forget, I'm not a committer, I'm not an
> >> Apache member in any way, so me casting a non-binding +1 vote means
> >> squat other than "yeah, one extra set of eyes has looked at it and
> >> thinks it looks good".
> >>
> >
> > Oh, I don't think that follows at all. Most of supporting a release is
> not
> > making commits. It's helping folks on the lists, submitting bug reports
> and
> > patches, updating documentation, and all manner of other things. Those
> are
> > things that any contributor can do, not just committers, so I'm not sure
> I
> > understand why you believe non-committers would get a "bye" on their +1
> > votes.
>
> That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it.
Of course you do. If you didn't, I'd think you'd gone on vacation or
something. ;-)
So you're saying that if a non-committer thinks a release looks OK, a +1
says just that and means nothing more, whereas if a committer thinks it
looks OK, they can't vote the same way unless they're committing to support
it, and therefore cannot contribute to the binding vote count required for a
release. But why would the non-committer vote in such an inconsistent way?
Surely the appropriate thing to do would be to vote +0, which is what the
committer would have to do in order to indicate that they thought the
release looked OK but were not in a position to support it.
In any case, I'm going to sign out of this discussion now, as I have enough
to do keeping up with my day job, and don't feel the need to further defend
my right to vote +1 as I feel appropriate.
--
Martin Cooper
> Put simply, I feel
> that anyone officially made a member of a project team has accepted a
> greater level of responsibility than someone in the larger user community.
>
> In the same way that if I participate in a Microsoft beta program, and I
> tell them that the beta looks solid, that doesn't imply anything about
> any support I'm willing, ready and able to contribute, it's the same in
> a community-driven project. I may still be willing and able to write
> Wiki entries about the product, help polish docs, answer questions on
> mailing lists, things like that, but me telling them the build looks
> good doesn't imply I'm going to be around to do any of that because my
> responsibility begins and ends with validating the beta. It's different
> for a member of the development team: it's a higher level of
> responsibility.
>
> If this wasn't all implicitly true, what would ever be the difference
> between a binding and non-binding vote? Wouldn't they be relegated to
> the same level of meaning? Clearly binding votes carry more weight, but
> on what basis? I'd argue at least part of it is that implied
> responsibility, that implied willingness to support the release, which a
> non-binding vote doesn't carry, and I think rightly so.
>
> Now, I do however think that in practice it's probably true that most
> non-members that take the time to vote also take the time to provide
> support. Speaking for myself, I've certainly answered my share of
> questions on the lists, offered help many times, have contributed to the
> Wiki and have supplied some patches and enhancements, so it's pretty
> clear *for me* that even a non-binding vote has meaning, some implied
> responsibility. This is probably the case for most voters, but I don't
> believe there is the same implied expectation (a word I've hesitated to
> use previously) that there is for binding votes, it's just good
> community when it happens.
>
> > Martin Cooper
>
> Frank
>
> --
> Frank W. Zammetti
> Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
> (2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
> and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
> (2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
> and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
> (2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
> Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
> Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
[snip]
>
> In the same way that if I participate in a Microsoft beta program, and I
> tell them that the beta looks solid, that doesn't imply anything about any
> support I'm willing, ready and able to contribute, it's the same in a
> community-driven project.
[snip]
I think you're mixing apples and pears here.
M$ don't ask for a vote before they release stuff, they make a call based on
the number and type of open bugs, so it's a different quality scoring
mechanism. They also make it very clear that they are going to provide
support and that users should not try and roll their own fixes to problems.
We could always switch to holding off releases until we have 0 bugs of major
and above level :) (if we did that then we should do the M$ thing and switch
the default JIRA level to be the lowest possible and let the user upgrade it
rather than everything going in as Major by default).
>
> Frank
>
> --
> Frank W. Zammetti
> Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
> (2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
> and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
> (2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
> and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
> (2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
> Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
> Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 10:40 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't forget, I'm not a committer, I'm not an
>> Apache member in any way, so me casting a non-binding +1 vote means
>> squat other than "yeah, one extra set of eyes has looked at it and
>> thinks it looks good".
>>
>
> Oh, I don't think that follows at all. Most of supporting a release is not
> making commits. It's helping folks on the lists, submitting bug reports and
> patches, updating documentation, and all manner of other things. Those are
> things that any contributor can do, not just committers, so I'm not sure I
> understand why you believe non-committers would get a "bye" on their +1
> votes.
That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it. Put simply, I feel
that anyone officially made a member of a project team has accepted a
greater level of responsibility than someone in the larger user community.
In the same way that if I participate in a Microsoft beta program, and I
tell them that the beta looks solid, that doesn't imply anything about
any support I'm willing, ready and able to contribute, it's the same in
a community-driven project. I may still be willing and able to write
Wiki entries about the product, help polish docs, answer questions on
mailing lists, things like that, but me telling them the build looks
good doesn't imply I'm going to be around to do any of that because my
responsibility begins and ends with validating the beta. It's different
for a member of the development team: it's a higher level of responsibility.
If this wasn't all implicitly true, what would ever be the difference
between a binding and non-binding vote? Wouldn't they be relegated to
the same level of meaning? Clearly binding votes carry more weight, but
on what basis? I'd argue at least part of it is that implied
responsibility, that implied willingness to support the release, which a
non-binding vote doesn't carry, and I think rightly so.
Now, I do however think that in practice it's probably true that most
non-members that take the time to vote also take the time to provide
support. Speaking for myself, I've certainly answered my share of
questions on the lists, offered help many times, have contributed to the
Wiki and have supplied some patches and enhancements, so it's pretty
clear *for me* that even a non-binding vote has meaning, some implied
responsibility. This is probably the case for most voters, but I don't
believe there is the same implied expectation (a word I've hesitated to
use previously) that there is for binding votes, it's just good
community when it happens.
> Martin Cooper
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On Jan 14, 2008 10:40 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> Don't forget, I'm not a committer, I'm not an
> Apache member in any way, so me casting a non-binding +1 vote means
> squat other than "yeah, one extra set of eyes has looked at it and
> thinks it looks good".
>
Oh, I don't think that follows at all. Most of supporting a release is not
making commits. It's helping folks on the lists, submitting bug reports and
patches, updating documentation, and all manner of other things. Those are
things that any contributor can do, not just committers, so I'm not sure I
understand why you believe non-committers would get a "bye" on their +1
votes.
--
Martin Cooper
Re: [struts-dev] [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
On Tue, January 15, 2008 1:09 pm, Dale Newfield wrote:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> my feeling is that until a project deprecates a release, then
>> no, there would be no expiration. Anyone who +1'd a release is implying
>> they are willing to support it until it's officially deprecated.
>
> Do we ever deprecate any releases except non-current patch-level ones?
> (I.E.: is W.X.Y automatically deprecated when W.X.Z (where Z>Y) is
> released? Is A.B.C ever deprecated if there exists no A.B.D where D>C?)
Not that I'm aware of, no. But I think you were getting at the question
of whether a +1 means implicitly that you are willing to support that
release in perpetuity, which I doubt too many people would be comfortable
saying, and I was just providing an escape clause :)
> -Dale
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [struts-dev] [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Dale Newfield <Da...@Newfield.org>.
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> my feeling is that until a project deprecates a release, then
> no, there would be no expiration. Anyone who +1'd a release is implying
> they are willing to support it until it's officially deprecated.
Do we ever deprecate any releases except non-current patch-level ones?
(I.E.: is W.X.Y automatically deprecated when W.X.Z (where Z>Y) is
released? Is A.B.C ever deprecated if there exists no A.B.D where D>C?)
-Dale
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [struts-dev] [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
On Tue, January 15, 2008 11:38 am, Dale Newfield wrote:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> Martin Cooper wrote:
>>> Should we declare Struts 1 dead? Do we have three PMC members who are
>>> still willing to support further releases of it?
>>
>> That's a loaded question... do we have even three *PEOPLE* still willing
>> to support further releases of S1? :)
>
> Does that mean the "intention"/"willingness"/"pinky swear" implied by a
> "+1" vote expires with the next release?
Interesting question Dale, I admittedly hadn't considered that. Doing so
now though, my feeling is that until a project deprecates a release, then
no, there would be no expiration. Anyone who +1'd a release is implying
they are willing to support it until it's officially deprecated.
Tangentially, to be clear, I for one have *NO* problem with a project
deprecating a particular release, if by "deprecate" you mean "we no longer
even *imply* that we will support that release". That of course doesn't
mean that someone can't use that release, nor does it mean no one will
actually support it, but it *does* mean that there's no longer any implied
support given to the community at that point.
More concretely for instance, if a vote was taken today and it was decided
that Struts 1.1 is now deprecated, I personally would be OK with that.
You could still get the bits and use them, could still ask questions about
it on the mailing list, and would likely continue to get answers from both
committers and users at large, but you could no longer at that point say
to those that voted +1 years ago: "Hey, can you help me?" and have even
the smallest expectation of getting a reply.
> -Dale
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [struts-dev] [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Dale Newfield <Da...@Newfield.org>.
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
>> Should we declare Struts 1 dead? Do we have three PMC members who are
>> still willing to support further releases of it?
>
> That's a loaded question... do we have even three *PEOPLE* still willing
> to support further releases of S1? :)
Does that mean the "intention"/"willingness"/"pinky swear" implied by a
"+1" vote expires with the next release?
-Dale
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
On Tue, January 15, 2008 4:59 am, Ted Husted wrote:
> As it happens, the only outstanding patch for Struts 1 is one of
> Frank's, [STR-3006], an IE7 edge case.
That's funny, I didn't even remember that one!
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On Jan 15, 2008 1:40 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> That's a loaded question... do we have even three *PEOPLE* still willing
> to support further releases of S1? :)
If a security flaw, or other important reason to do a new release
appeared, yes, I am sure that we do.
As it happens, the only outstanding patch for Struts 1 is one of
Frank's, [STR-3006], an IE7 edge case.
If that were the case for S2, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
>> No, "prohibited" would probably be too strong (PROBABLY)... And yes,
>> I'd agree that if you know there are dozens of committers ready to
>> provide support, that's a bit of a different story too. But can you
>> really say such a discussion usually takes place before a vote? Is the
>> question: "are there at least a few people ready to support this?"
>> actually asked before a vote is called? That would be atypical in my
>> experience, based on the project I've been involved in.
>
> For anyone paying attention to the project, the question shouldn't need to
> be asked. It should be clear from the activity on the mailing lists. What do
> you think, Frank? Are there people here that will support Struts 2.0.12 or
> 2.1.1? I think you know the answer to that, but can you point me to the
> discussion thread where that was established?
Of course I know the answer to that, and the fact that there's no
discussion required supports my point. A +1 apparently means to enough
people that they intend to support a given release. Exactly what I've
been saying all along.
> Assuming that's the case then, it's the *implication* of what a +1 means
>> that's important, which I believe was Ted's point.
>
>
> If what's the case?
That a discussion of who will support the release doesn't typically
occur before a release.
> What's important about a +1 vote from a PMC member is that it counts towards
> the minimum three +1 votes required for the release to happen at all. The
> _implication_ of what you are saying is that, without at least three PMC
> members - not just committers or interested contributors, but PMC members -
> who are ready to support the release, that release cannot happen at all.
I had to think about that one for a few minutes :) No, what I'm saying
is that NO ONE should be voting +1 for a release that they are not
themselves willing to support. Now, let me be clear: this in no way
ensures that everyone who votes +1 WILL support the release. Clearly
some won't, for one reason or another, and that's OK...
Let's try it another way... you earlier implied that there are plenty of
people willing to support 2.1.1, and I agree 100%. But how do we *know*
that? What if everyone who votes +1, in their own minds, thinks to
themselves "yeah, I'm voting +1, but TO ME that doesn't mean I'm going
to support it, and further I have no intention of supporting this
release"? That release is then left unsupported by those that voted to
release it, a situation that should never happen (and as you pointed
out, Apache members are typically responsible, so such a thought would
likely never cross their minds). That's also why there's X number of
votes required I think: if each one implies they intend to support the
release, it's likely that at least ONE person actually will, and the
release will be supported. Without that implicit meaning, it's a
crap-shoot. (And yes, it's also true that even with this implication in
place, a release could wind up going unsupported, but history has shown
that's just not likely).
> Should we declare Struts 1 dead? Do we have three PMC members who are still
> willing to support further releases of it?
That's a loaded question... do we have even three *PEOPLE* still willing
to support further releases of S1? :)
>> I left the part above where you said "...a +1 vote is *not* an assertion
>> that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support". I would
>> contend just the opposite is in fact the case, but I'll now qualify it
>> slightly in light of your reply: in the absence of a discussion before a
>> vote where it is determined who will provide support other than the
>> person casting a +1, then that +1 does in fact *imply* that person
>> *specifically* intends to provide support. Stated another way: a person
>> voting +1 cannot *assume* there will be support provided by others, that
>> would potentially be a big disservice to the community at large when
>> they discover no one is in fact willing to support the release.
>
> See above. I'd bet that, on at least one version of Struts in the past, you
> have done exactly that - "*assume*d there will be support provided by
> others".
You're right, and I'd even take it a step further: I have *always*
assumed there would be support provided by others because I've always
assumed a +1 vote by any responsible Apache member implies they intend
to support the release. Don't forget, I'm not a committer, I'm not an
Apache member in any way, so me casting a non-binding +1 vote means
squat other than "yeah, one extra set of eyes has looked at it and
thinks it looks good". Rest assured, if I was a member, my +1 vote
would *always* mean I'm willing to support the release, otherwise I'd
abstain.
> The fact that projects at Apache do not typically push out release which
>> are not then supported pretty much supports this: I think most Apache
>> members voting +1 are not only saying "I believe the code is ready for
>> public consumption" but are also by implication saying "...and I'm ready
>> to back up that belief with support".
>
> They probably are. But that's a long way from that being a requirement,
> which is the point on which this conversation started.
Not to be Clintonesque or anything, but I think it depends on what your
definition of "requirement" is :) Should you not be able to cast a vote
until you've FAX'd in some notarized certification of your intent to
support a release? No, that'd be over the top. But, should it be a
safe assumption by all members of the community that your +1 means you
are willing to support the release? Yes, I believe so. Further, I
believe all the projects that have worked well to this point are
evidence that most people feel that way, whether it's ever been written
down somewhere or not.
> Martin Cooper
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On Jan 14, 2008 9:16 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> >>> However, a +1 vote is *not* an
> >>> assertion that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such
> support.
> >
> > Please try re-reading what I wrote. Unless, that is, you are saying that
> I
> > should be *prohibited* from voting +1 on any release unless I am
> > *personally* committed to fixing the bugs, even if there are a dozen
> other
> > committers out there who I know for a fact are going to be doing that
> > whether or not I do so myself.
>
> No, "prohibited" would probably be too strong (PROBABLY)... And yes,
> I'd agree that if you know there are dozens of committers ready to
> provide support, that's a bit of a different story too. But can you
> really say such a discussion usually takes place before a vote? Is the
> question: "are there at least a few people ready to support this?"
> actually asked before a vote is called? That would be atypical in my
> experience, based on the project I've been involved in.
For anyone paying attention to the project, the question shouldn't need to
be asked. It should be clear from the activity on the mailing lists. What do
you think, Frank? Are there people here that will support Struts 2.0.12 or
2.1.1? I think you know the answer to that, but can you point me to the
discussion thread where that was established?
Assuming that's the case then, it's the *implication* of what a +1 means
> that's important, which I believe was Ted's point.
If what's the case?
What's important about a +1 vote from a PMC member is that it counts towards
the minimum three +1 votes required for the release to happen at all. The
_implication_ of what you are saying is that, without at least three PMC
members - not just committers or interested contributors, but PMC members -
who are ready to support the release, that release cannot happen at all.
Should we declare Struts 1 dead? Do we have three PMC members who are still
willing to support further releases of it?
> I left the part above where you said "...a +1 vote is *not* an assertion
> that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support". I would
> contend just the opposite is in fact the case, but I'll now qualify it
> slightly in light of your reply: in the absence of a discussion before a
> vote where it is determined who will provide support other than the
> person casting a +1, then that +1 does in fact *imply* that person
> *specifically* intends to provide support. Stated another way: a person
> voting +1 cannot *assume* there will be support provided by others, that
> would potentially be a big disservice to the community at large when
> they discover no one is in fact willing to support the release.
See above. I'd bet that, on at least one version of Struts in the past, you
have done exactly that - "*assume*d there will be support provided by
others".
The fact that projects at Apache do not typically push out release which
> are not then supported pretty much supports this: I think most Apache
> members voting +1 are not only saying "I believe the code is ready for
> public consumption" but are also by implication saying "...and I'm ready
> to back up that belief with support".
They probably are. But that's a long way from that being a requirement,
which is the point on which this conversation started.
--
Martin Cooper
> I dare say that's the underlying
> belief with most open-source projects, at least the good ones. In fact,
> I'd love to hear from anyone reading this who DOESN'T feel that way and
> why.
>
> > I am *not* saying that we should throw the bits out there and leave them
> to
> > rot. I *am* saying that, as a PMC member, I have a right to vote +1 for
> a
> > release even if I, personally, am not in a position to work on the code
> > right now. Now, I *could* choose to be irresponsible, and vote +1 in the
> > knowledge that nobody is going to support it, but I happen to believe
> that
> > the people we have voted on to the PMC over the years are actually
> > responsible people.
>
> I have ZERO doubt that Apache members, by and large, vote responsibly in
> this regard. The fact that Apache overall has been as successful as it
> has been pretty much proves you're right and very few members are being
> irresponsible. But I also believe that's because that for most, a +1
> vote does imply they will support the release. Without that
> implication, and without discussion of support before the vote, who's to
> say *anyone* will support the release? If that implication doesn't
> exist, how can the community at large every have any confidence that a
> project intends to support its releases? Oh, you may have the right to
> do it, but I don't believe it's RIGHT to do it.
>
> > Martin Cooper
>
> Frank
>
> --
> Frank W. Zammetti
> Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
> (2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
> and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
> (2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
> and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
> (2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
> Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
> Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
>>> However, a +1 vote is *not* an
>>> assertion that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support.
>
> Please try re-reading what I wrote. Unless, that is, you are saying that I
> should be *prohibited* from voting +1 on any release unless I am
> *personally* committed to fixing the bugs, even if there are a dozen other
> committers out there who I know for a fact are going to be doing that
> whether or not I do so myself.
No, "prohibited" would probably be too strong (PROBABLY)... And yes,
I'd agree that if you know there are dozens of committers ready to
provide support, that's a bit of a different story too. But can you
really say such a discussion usually takes place before a vote? Is the
question: "are there at least a few people ready to support this?"
actually asked before a vote is called? That would be atypical in my
experience, based on the project I've been involved in.
Assuming that's the case then, it's the *implication* of what a +1 means
that's important, which I believe was Ted's point.
I left the part above where you said "...a +1 vote is *not* an assertion
that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support". I would
contend just the opposite is in fact the case, but I'll now qualify it
slightly in light of your reply: in the absence of a discussion before a
vote where it is determined who will provide support other than the
person casting a +1, then that +1 does in fact *imply* that person
*specifically* intends to provide support. Stated another way: a person
voting +1 cannot *assume* there will be support provided by others, that
would potentially be a big disservice to the community at large when
they discover no one is in fact willing to support the release.
The fact that projects at Apache do not typically push out release which
are not then supported pretty much supports this: I think most Apache
members voting +1 are not only saying "I believe the code is ready for
public consumption" but are also by implication saying "...and I'm ready
to back up that belief with support". I dare say that's the underlying
belief with most open-source projects, at least the good ones. In fact,
I'd love to hear from anyone reading this who DOESN'T feel that way and why.
> I am *not* saying that we should throw the bits out there and leave them to
> rot. I *am* saying that, as a PMC member, I have a right to vote +1 for a
> release even if I, personally, am not in a position to work on the code
> right now. Now, I *could* choose to be irresponsible, and vote +1 in the
> knowledge that nobody is going to support it, but I happen to believe that
> the people we have voted on to the PMC over the years are actually
> responsible people.
I have ZERO doubt that Apache members, by and large, vote responsibly in
this regard. The fact that Apache overall has been as successful as it
has been pretty much proves you're right and very few members are being
irresponsible. But I also believe that's because that for most, a +1
vote does imply they will support the release. Without that
implication, and without discussion of support before the vote, who's to
say *anyone* will support the release? If that implication doesn't
exist, how can the community at large every have any confidence that a
project intends to support its releases? Oh, you may have the right to
do it, but I don't believe it's RIGHT to do it.
> Martin Cooper
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On Jan 14, 2008 2:24 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> On Mon, January 14, 2008 5:06 pm, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
> >> we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
> >> is saying that he or she intends to help support the release.
> >>
> >
> > No, it's not. That is a myth that you have been perpetuating for several
> > years now, but it's just not true, and quite frankly I'm fed up hearing
> > it.
> >
> > A +1 vote for a GA release is a vote of confidence that the
> corresponding
> > bits are suitable for GA release, and hence for consumption by "the
> > public".
> > Certainly someone casting such a vote may take into consideration the
> > likelihood, or otherwise, that the release will be supported by the
> > community (although in truth that should have been a topic of discussion
> > before the bits ever came to a vote). However, a +1 vote is *not* an
> > assertion that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support.
>
> An open-source "community" based on the premise that simply throwing the
> bits out there once you feel they are ready, and there is no implied
> responsibility of those throwing the bits out there to offer at least
> *some minimal degree* of support, is tantamount to a community destined to
> destroy itself, plain and simple.
Please try re-reading what I wrote. Unless, that is, you are saying that I
should be *prohibited* from voting +1 on any release unless I am
*personally* committed to fixing the bugs, even if there are a dozen other
committers out there who I know for a fact are going to be doing that
whether or not I do so myself.
I am *not* saying that we should throw the bits out there and leave them to
rot. I *am* saying that, as a PMC member, I have a right to vote +1 for a
release even if I, personally, am not in a position to work on the code
right now. Now, I *could* choose to be irresponsible, and vote +1 in the
knowledge that nobody is going to support it, but I happen to believe that
the people we have voted on to the PMC over the years are actually
responsible people.
--
Martin Cooper
This would be much like the manufacturer of dynamite saying "here's the
> sticks, we *believe* they're ready for your use, but don't assume we're
> going to answer the phone if you come calling for help". I dare say no
> one would use the explosive from that manufacturer given that statement,
> nor would too many likely use an open-source project that made such a
> statement, directly or implied.
>
> No, Ted's assertion, as I read it, is that open-source developers should
> take at least *some* degree of responsibility for the bits they release,
> and I happen to very much agree with that. The developers *are* the
> community, isn't that a big part of the Apache Way? If those casting the
> votes do not intend to support what they are voting for, who is expected
> to?
>
> > --
> > Martin Cooper
>
> Frank
>
> --
> Frank W. Zammetti
> Author of "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
> (2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
> and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
> (2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
> and "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
> (2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
> Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
> Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
On Mon, January 14, 2008 5:06 pm, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
>> we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
>> is saying that he or she intends to help support the release.
>>
>
> No, it's not. That is a myth that you have been perpetuating for several
> years now, but it's just not true, and quite frankly I'm fed up hearing
> it.
>
> A +1 vote for a GA release is a vote of confidence that the corresponding
> bits are suitable for GA release, and hence for consumption by "the
> public".
> Certainly someone casting such a vote may take into consideration the
> likelihood, or otherwise, that the release will be supported by the
> community (although in truth that should have been a topic of discussion
> before the bits ever came to a vote). However, a +1 vote is *not* an
> assertion that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support.
An open-source "community" based on the premise that simply throwing the
bits out there once you feel they are ready, and there is no implied
responsibility of those throwing the bits out there to offer at least
*some minimal degree* of support, is tantamount to a community destined to
destroy itself, plain and simple.
This would be much like the manufacturer of dynamite saying "here's the
sticks, we *believe* they're ready for your use, but don't assume we're
going to answer the phone if you come calling for help". I dare say no
one would use the explosive from that manufacturer given that statement,
nor would too many likely use an open-source project that made such a
statement, directly or implied.
No, Ted's assertion, as I read it, is that open-source developers should
take at least *some* degree of responsibility for the bits they release,
and I happen to very much agree with that. The developers *are* the
community, isn't that a big part of the Apache Way? If those casting the
votes do not intend to support what they are voting for, who is expected
to?
> --
> Martin Cooper
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On Jan 14, 2008 10:05 AM, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
> we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
> is saying that he or she intends to help support the release.
>
No, it's not. That is a myth that you have been perpetuating for several
years now, but it's just not true, and quite frankly I'm fed up hearing it.
A +1 vote for a GA release is a vote of confidence that the corresponding
bits are suitable for GA release, and hence for consumption by "the public".
Certainly someone casting such a vote may take into consideration the
likelihood, or otherwise, that the release will be supported by the
community (although in truth that should have been a topic of discussion
before the bits ever came to a vote). However, a +1 vote is *not* an
assertion that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support.
--
Martin Cooper
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Mitchell James <jm...@gmail.com>.
> "Just as long as they spell my name right"
Heh heh :)
--
James Mitchell
On Jan 14, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
> OK, here it is, out of context ...
>
> * http://www.jroller.com/TedHusted/entry/geek_glossary_asf
>
> - Ted "Just as long as they spell my name right" Husted.
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 1:28 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
>>>> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
>>>
>>> It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
>>> question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
>>> freeloaders who just download the software, but volunteers who
>>> answer
>>> mailing list posts and provide patches.
>>
>> You know Ted, if you and I were on opposite sides of a political
>> campaign,
>> your choice of words ("freeloaders") would have given me ample
>> ammunition
>> to attack you for weeks, maybe wind up costing you the election! -
>> LOL
>>
>> I know what you really meant by it, as did everyone else here, but
>> you
>> know as well as I do that there are people out there that will take
>> anything they can find to use to attack a project they don't
>> like... I
>> wonder how long before this is taken out of context and shows up on
>> someones' blog? :)
>>
>>> -Ted.
>>
>> Frank
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
OK, here it is, out of context ...
* http://www.jroller.com/TedHusted/entry/geek_glossary_asf
- Ted "Just as long as they spell my name right" Husted.
On Jan 14, 2008 1:28 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
> >> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
> >
> > It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
> > question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
> > freeloaders who just download the software, but volunteers who answer
> > mailing list posts and provide patches.
>
> You know Ted, if you and I were on opposite sides of a political campaign,
> your choice of words ("freeloaders") would have given me ample ammunition
> to attack you for weeks, maybe wind up costing you the election! - LOL
>
> I know what you really meant by it, as did everyone else here, but you
> know as well as I do that there are people out there that will take
> anything they can find to use to attack a project they don't like... I
> wonder how long before this is taken out of context and shows up on
> someones' blog? :)
>
> > -Ted.
>
> Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
I always think of every "freeloader" as a "free-tester".
You can be pretty sure they'll start making noises if they come accross a
bug :).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Cc: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
>
> On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
>>> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
>>
>> It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
>> question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
>> freeloaders who just download the software, but volunteers who answer
>> mailing list posts and provide patches.
>
> You know Ted, if you and I were on opposite sides of a political campaign,
> your choice of words ("freeloaders") would have given me ample ammunition
> to attack you for weeks, maybe wind up costing you the election! - LOL
>
> I know what you really meant by it, as did everyone else here, but you
> know as well as I do that there are people out there that will take
> anything they can find to use to attack a project they don't like... I
> wonder how long before this is taken out of context and shows up on
> someones' blog? :)
>
>> -Ted.
>
> Frank
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Wes Wannemacher <we...@wantii.com>.
Sorry, I took it down shortly after sending the message, I figured
someone would stumble across it (since there is an RSS feed) and take it
serious :(
Screenshot for your pleasure -
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/2193406250_160ff3c1c0_b.jpg
-Wes
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 19:16 +0000, Al Sutton wrote:
> A link to a "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria." page always shows a
> classy commentator :).
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wes Wannemacher" <we...@wantii.com>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
>
>
> > Holy crap Frank!
> >
> > http://www.wantii.com/wordpress/?p=20
> >
> > You were right! That was quick ;-)
> >
> > -Wes
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 13:28 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> >> On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
> >> >> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
> >> >
> >> > It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
> >> > question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
> >> > freeloaders who just download the software, but volunteers who answer
> >> > mailing list posts and provide patches.
> >>
> >> You know Ted, if you and I were on opposite sides of a political
> >> campaign,
> >> your choice of words ("freeloaders") would have given me ample ammunition
> >> to attack you for weeks, maybe wind up costing you the election! - LOL
> >>
> >> I know what you really meant by it, as did everyone else here, but you
> >> know as well as I do that there are people out there that will take
> >> anything they can find to use to attack a project they don't like... I
> >> wonder how long before this is taken out of context and shows up on
> >> someones' blog? :)
> >>
> >> > -Ted.
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
A link to a "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria." page always shows a
classy commentator :).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wes Wannemacher" <we...@wantii.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
> Holy crap Frank!
>
> http://www.wantii.com/wordpress/?p=20
>
> You were right! That was quick ;-)
>
> -Wes
>
> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 13:28 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
>> >> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
>> >
>> > It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
>> > question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
>> > freeloaders who just download the software, but volunteers who answer
>> > mailing list posts and provide patches.
>>
>> You know Ted, if you and I were on opposite sides of a political
>> campaign,
>> your choice of words ("freeloaders") would have given me ample ammunition
>> to attack you for weeks, maybe wind up costing you the election! - LOL
>>
>> I know what you really meant by it, as did everyone else here, but you
>> know as well as I do that there are people out there that will take
>> anything they can find to use to attack a project they don't like... I
>> wonder how long before this is taken out of context and shows up on
>> someones' blog? :)
>>
>> > -Ted.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Wes Wannemacher <we...@wantii.com>.
Holy crap Frank!
http://www.wantii.com/wordpress/?p=20
You were right! That was quick ;-)
-Wes
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 13:28 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
> >> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
> >
> > It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
> > question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
> > freeloaders who just download the software, but volunteers who answer
> > mailing list posts and provide patches.
>
> You know Ted, if you and I were on opposite sides of a political campaign,
> your choice of words ("freeloaders") would have given me ample ammunition
> to attack you for weeks, maybe wind up costing you the election! - LOL
>
> I know what you really meant by it, as did everyone else here, but you
> know as well as I do that there are people out there that will take
> anything they can find to use to attack a project they don't like... I
> wonder how long before this is taken out of context and shows up on
> someones' blog? :)
>
> > -Ted.
>
> Frank
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:05 pm, Ted Husted wrote:
>> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
>
> It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
> question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
> freeloaders who just download the software, but volunteers who answer
> mailing list posts and provide patches.
You know Ted, if you and I were on opposite sides of a political campaign,
your choice of words ("freeloaders") would have given me ample ammunition
to attack you for weeks, maybe wind up costing you the election! - LOL
I know what you really meant by it, as did everyone else here, but you
know as well as I do that there are people out there that will take
anything they can find to use to attack a project they don't like... I
wonder how long before this is taken out of context and shows up on
someones' blog? :)
> -Ted.
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Mitchell James <jm...@gmail.com>.
I'd like to add a +1 to Ted's remarks.
The nightly builds (including j4 binaries) are done by a process that
I run from the Apache Struts zone box. I may very well be wrong, but
I was under the impression that those j4 binaries were for
convenience only and not part of the official distribution that I
have to support if I +1 for a GA.
I agree with you Ted about the need for these being community
driven. In fact, late last year, the nightly process had stopped
somehow and no one even noticed for many weeks. That was a pretty
clear indicator for me as to just how many people were using the
nightlies (j4 included).
--
James Mitchell
On Jan 14, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2008 12:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli
> <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/1/12, Tom Schneider <sc...@gmail.com>:
>>> I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having
>>> issues
>>> with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not) then we're
>>> obligated to assist that user.
>>
>> Obligated? Come on we are all volunteers, we are not obliged to do
>> anything: we do it because we like what we do.
>
> It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
> we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
> is saying that he or she intends to help support the release. If the
> release includes a J4 distribution, it means that we are each saying
> that we will make a good-faith effort to support that distribution
> too.
>
> If none of the committers are using the J4 builds in production now,
> and we have no realistic expectation that any of us are going to try
> and support the J4 builds, then it's dishonest to include them.
>
>
>>> Long term I
>>> think we will drop the 1.4 stuff at some point, it's just a
>>> matter of
>>> figuring out when.
>>
>> I think that if we drop the 1.4 stuff, we lose a lot of audience.
>
> If it means we are going to lose active contributors, then I say we
> should keep doing it.
>
> If it means we are going to lose anonymous users who don't contribute
> to the project, then I don't care.
>
>
>>> Another advantage is the builds become a bit simpler. (Or at least
>>> there's a chunk of the build that goes away)
>>
>> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
>
> It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
> question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
> freeloaders who just download the software, but volunteers who answer
> mailing list posts and provide patches.
>
> A year ago, the answer was yes. Now, I'm not so sure.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On Jan 12, 2008 12:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/1/12, Tom Schneider <sc...@gmail.com>:
> > I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having issues
> > with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not) then we're
> > obligated to assist that user.
>
> Obligated? Come on we are all volunteers, we are not obliged to do
> anything: we do it because we like what we do.
It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
is saying that he or she intends to help support the release. If the
release includes a J4 distribution, it means that we are each saying
that we will make a good-faith effort to support that distribution
too.
If none of the committers are using the J4 builds in production now,
and we have no realistic expectation that any of us are going to try
and support the J4 builds, then it's dishonest to include them.
> > Long term I
> > think we will drop the 1.4 stuff at some point, it's just a matter of
> > figuring out when.
>
> I think that if we drop the 1.4 stuff, we lose a lot of audience.
If it means we are going to lose active contributors, then I say we
should keep doing it.
If it means we are going to lose anonymous users who don't contribute
to the project, then I don't care.
> > Another advantage is the builds become a bit simpler. (Or at least
> > there's a chunk of the build that goes away)
>
> Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
It is fast, but the artifacts add to the clutter and confusion. The
question is whether it's gaining us active contributors. Not
freeloaders who just download the software, but volunteers who answer
mailing list posts and provide patches.
A year ago, the answer was yes. Now, I'm not so sure.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2008/1/12, Tom Schneider <sc...@gmail.com>:
> I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having issues
> with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not) then we're
> obligated to assist that user.
Obligated? Come on we are all volunteers, we are not obliged to do
anything: we do it because we like what we do.
> Long term I
> think we will drop the 1.4 stuff at some point, it's just a matter of
> figuring out when.
I think that if we drop the 1.4 stuff, we lose a lot of audience.
> Another advantage is the builds become a bit simpler. (Or at least
> there's a chunk of the build that goes away)
Retrotranslation seems a pretty fast process to me.
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
--- Tom Schneider <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having issues
> with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not)
I haven't seen very many 1.4 support issues on the user list; I don't know
about XWork itself. Most (all?) the issues I've seen are related to not
including enough translated jars, which is pretty easy to fix.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Tom Schneider <sc...@gmail.com>.
I disagree, I think there is a support cost. If users are having issues
with the 1.4 stuff, (which happens more often than not) then we're
obligated to assist that user. If we dropped the 1.4 stuff, maybe for
Struts 2.1, then we would no longer have that obligation. Long term I
think we will drop the 1.4 stuff at some point, it's just a matter of
figuring out when.
Another advantage is the builds become a bit simpler. (Or at least
there's a chunk of the build that goes away) I'm not arguing for
dropping 1.4 support, but there are some reasons to consider it.
Tom
Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> 2008/1/12, Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>:
>
>> I'd vote for sticking with the current approach for 2.0 and then dropping
>> the 1.4 support entirely for 2.1.
>>
>> It would cause confusion to change the existing convention of dependancy
>> packaging, but for a the new minor release (2.1) we can finally follow the
>> statement on the struts2 website saying that Java 5 is a requirement and
>> redirect the effort currently spent on the J4 release into improving the
>> code code.
>>
>
> I sincerely don't know why we should remove the J4 support, since it
> costs zero for us, thanks to Retrotranslator.
>
> Antonio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2008/1/12, Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>:
> I'd vote for sticking with the current approach for 2.0 and then dropping
> the 1.4 support entirely for 2.1.
>
> It would cause confusion to change the existing convention of dependancy
> packaging, but for a the new minor release (2.1) we can finally follow the
> statement on the struts2 website saying that Java 5 is a requirement and
> redirect the effort currently spent on the J4 release into improving the
> code code.
I sincerely don't know why we should remove the J4 support, since it
costs zero for us, thanks to Retrotranslator.
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
I'd vote for sticking with the current approach for 2.0 and then dropping
the 1.4 support entirely for 2.1.
It would cause confusion to change the existing convention of dependancy
packaging, but for a the new minor release (2.1) we can finally follow the
statement on the struts2 website saying that Java 5 is a requirement and
redirect the effort currently spent on the J4 release into improving the
code code.
-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Petrelli [mailto:antonio.petrelli@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 January 2008 15:05
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
2008/1/11, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>:
>
> I'm leaning more and more to not shipping dependencies by default
Do you mean in the "lib" and "all" distributions too?
I don't know: if you don't put them in, you have not a working distribution.
IMO, if a developer downloads a distribution expects to find everything
he/she needs to make it work. If I want to control the dependencies better,
I will get on the Maven path.
Antonio
so I'd prefer the 1.4 distro to not have them. Our download
> sizes are way too big already.
Ok
Thanks
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2008/1/11, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>:
>
> I'm leaning more and more to not shipping dependencies by
> default
Do you mean in the "lib" and "all" distributions too?
I don't know: if you don't put them in, you have not a working distribution.
IMO, if a developer downloads a distribution expects to find everything
he/she needs to make it work. If I want to control the dependencies better,
I will get on the Maven path.
Antonio
so I'd prefer the 1.4 distro to not have them. Our download
> sizes are way too big already.
Ok
Thanks
Antonio
Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Personally, I'm leaning more and more to not shipping dependencies by
default, so I'd prefer the 1.4 distro to not have them. Our download
sizes are way too big already.
Don
On 1/12/08, Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Currently in the JDK 1.4 distribution, that contains backported Struts
> 2 artifacts, all the dependencies are added, while in release builds
> only the backported artifacts (along with Retrotranslator runtime
> libraries) are included.
> What are your feelings? Do you think that adding dependencies in this
> distributions is correct?
>
> Notice that, in this case, the JDK1.4-compatible JARs must be used,
> such as Tiles backported artifacts.
>
> Thoughts?
> Antonio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org