Draft Board Report September

[Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org>]

Hi all,

Please comment/correct when my view of our progress since the last Board
report doesn't match the collective view, point out spelling/grammar
mistakes, or make remarks about the issues worth mentioning I forgot:

"The last artifact, the QA framework, has been voted in and landed in
SVN. An automated build environment has been put in place and finally
all outstanding issues from the Sun issue tracking system have been
manually migrated in a large group effort into JIRA.

The River community agreed to do a first release to show the larger Jini
community it is serious in its efforts. It ain't a very ambitious
release and will be almost an equivalent of the last release done by Sun
but includes the ServiceUI code. This release also allows the River
community to get acquainted and find out about many of the ASF
procedures. No transformation of the com.sun.jini namespace to
org.apache.river will take place, but the River community is aware it
has to do that and will find an opportune moment for that during incubation.

As a side effect of the ambitions for the first release discussions on
new functionality don't seem to take off very well, but that time is
used to discuss the process the River project believes it needs to
establish. Although most committers have expressed their desire to have
code-review before code is being committed, due to complexity of the
codebase and the difficulty to test many aspects properly, it seems much
harder to decide to what extend to enforce that. We are in the process
of finding the right workable process to support those beliefs:
strong/soft RTC, CTR with the expectation committers know when they need
a review up-front, or something completely different. It will be
interesting to see whether the group can come up with a proposal
finally, or that due to tiredness interest in the subject will fade away
and we end up what is likely common with most other ASF projects.

US export regulations apply to the River codebase and although discussed
in the very early days we were living under the (wrong) impression that
complying to them only applied when we were about to release. We are
aware now we had to take care of it even before the code landed in SVN
and we are going to comply as soon as possible."
-- 
Mark

Re: Draft Board Report September

[Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org>]

Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Mark Brouwer wrote:
>> Latest version can be found here
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2007, one day left to
>> incorporate any comments.
> 
> Thanks for doing this, Mark.  One typo to fix:
>    A proposal for the initial process guidelines is up for a vote now that
>    combines CTR for public API and CTR for implementation details.
> 
> First CTR should be RTC.

Thanks, I made it look much worse than it is ;-), it has been corrected.
-- 
Mark

Re: Draft Board Report September

[Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>]

Mark Brouwer wrote:
> Latest version can be found here
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2007, one day left to
> incorporate any comments.

Thanks for doing this, Mark.  One typo to fix:
    A proposal for the initial process guidelines is up for a vote now that
    combines CTR for public API and CTR for implementation details.

First CTR should be RTC.

- Bob

Re: Draft Board Report September

[Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org>]

Mark Brouwer wrote:
> Dan Creswell wrote:
>> Has this been posted up yet?  Doesn't look like it?
> 
> Not yet, I hope to include the voting for the process guidelines, but
> that depends on whether Jim calls for a vote tomorrow.
> 
>> Minor grammatical and spelling suggestions below.....
> 
> Thanks Dan I appreciate it, I will apply the corrections for the next
> version.

Latest version can be found here
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2007, one day left to
incorporate any comments.
-- 
Mark

Re: Draft Board Report September

[Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org>]

Dan Creswell wrote:
> Has this been posted up yet?  Doesn't look like it?

Not yet, I hope to include the voting for the process guidelines, but
that depends on whether Jim calls for a vote tomorrow.

> Minor grammatical and spelling suggestions below.....

Thanks Dan I appreciate it, I will apply the corrections for the next
version.
-- 
Mark

Re: Draft Board Report September

[Dan Creswell <da...@dcrdev.demon.co.uk>]

Has this been posted up yet?  Doesn't look like it?

Minor grammatical and spelling suggestions below.....

Mark Brouwer wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Please comment/correct when my view of our progress since the last Board
> report doesn't match the collective view, point out spelling/grammar
> mistakes, or make remarks about the issues worth mentioning I forgot:
> 
> "The last artifact, the QA framework, has been voted in and landed in
> SVN. An automated build environment has been put in place and finally
> all outstanding issues from the Sun issue tracking system have been
> manually migrated in a large group effort into JIRA.
> 

Being picky should be "to JIRA".....

> The River community agreed to do a first release to show the larger Jini
> community it is serious in its efforts. It ain't a very ambitious
> release and will be almost an equivalent of the last release done by Sun
> but includes the ServiceUI code. This release also allows the River
> community to get acquainted and find out about many of the ASF
> procedures. No transformation of the com.sun.jini namespace to
> org.apache.river will take place, but the River community is aware it
> has to do that and will find an opportune moment for that during
> incubation.
> 
> As a side effect of the ambitions for the first release discussions on

Perhaps as a side effect.....

> new functionality don't seem to take off very well, but that time is

don't seem to have taken off very well, instead the time has been used

> used to discuss the process the River project believes it needs to
> establish. Although most committers have expressed their desire to have
> code-review before code is being committed, due to complexity of the

before code is committed

> codebase and the difficulty to test many aspects properly, it seems much
> harder to decide to what extend to enforce that. We are in the process

to what extent

> of finding the right workable process to support those beliefs:
> strong/soft RTC, CTR with the expectation committers know when they need
> a review up-front, or something completely different. It will be
> interesting to see whether the group can come up with a proposal
> finally, or that due to tiredness interest in the subject will fade away
> and we end up what is likely common with most other ASF projects.
> 

end up with what is likely

> US export regulations apply to the River codebase and although discussed
> in the very early days we were living under the (wrong) impression that
> complying to them only applied when we were about to release. We are

complying with them

> aware now we had to take care of it even before the code landed in SVN

aware now that we should have taken care of it

> and we are going to comply as soon as possible."

HTH,

Dan.

Re: Draft Board Report September

[Mike Morris <mi...@gmail.com>]

Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Dec 26, 2006.

Who was working so hard during a holiday season? ;-)

-- 
mike morris :: mikro2nd (at) gmail (dot) com

http://mikro2nd.net/
http://mikro2nd.net/blog/planb/
http://mikro2nd.net/blog/mike/

-- A day without chillies is a day wasted --

Re: Draft Board Report September

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 9/2/07, Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org> wrote:
> Please comment/correct when my view of our progress since the last Board
> report doesn't match the collective view, point out spelling/grammar
> mistakes, or make remarks about the issues worth mentioning I forgot:

As a last minute modification I added the "River entered incubation on
Dec 26, 2006." note to the report on the wiki. The incubation start
date is part of the standard data that should be on all reports.

BR,

Jukka Zitting