You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tamaya.apache.org by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org> on 2018/11/04 20:35:36 UTC
RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Hi *,
if there are no objections I'd like to file the following report in:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
Cheers,
Phil
<snip>
Tamaya
Tamaya is a highly flexible configuration solution based on an modular,
extensible and injectable key/value based design, which should provide a
minimal but extendible modern and functional API leveraging SE, ME and
EE environments.
Tamaya has been incubating since 2014-11-14.
Three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation:
1.Rework project homepage, provide easier onboarding information.
2.Grow community
3.Do more press work to spread the word about Tamaya's mission
Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC) or ASF Board wish/need to be
aware of?
* We'd like to graduate soon and plan some reworks to access a broader
audience and collect new contributors/people interested in the project.
How has the community developed since the last report?
* frequent bugreports and discussions via Jira/mailing list
* new external contributions
How has the project developed since the last report?
How would you assess the podling's maturity?
Please feel free to add your own commentary.
[ ] Initial setup
[ ] Working towards first release
[X] Community building
[X] Nearing graduation
[ ] Other:
Date of last release:
2017-05-28 0.3-incubating
When were the last committers or PPMC members elected?
* P. Ottlinger at 2016-04-24.
Have your mentors been helpful and responsive or are things falling
through the cracks? In the latter case, please list any open issues
that need to be addressed.
Signed-off-by:
[ ](tamaya) John D. Ament
Comments:
[ ](tamaya) David Blevins
Comments:
</snip>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>.
Am 05.11.18 um 18:34 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> I reviewed your private@ and dev@ emails for the last several months. I would suggest the following for your 3 tasks to graduate - I am being more specific:
>
> (1) Grow the PPMC from the existing community.
> (2) Make another Release
> (3) Blog about Tamaya
Thanks for your input and for the encouragement to continue our work
with the project :-)
Cheers
Phil
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
William,
Great news, that allows you to also help other JSRs, e.g. 381 which has
some ties to Apache projects like MXNet or SystemML.
Of course you could join JSR 382 as a contributor:
https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=382. Use the "I would like to join this
JSR" link.
I really can't tell what they gonna do with it, there should have been a
Renewal Ballot but it may at least have to wait till after the current JCP
EC elections.
Hope to learn more in a week when I meet both Emily (one of the Spec Leads)
and Otavio as well as Ondro from Payara which does not contribute to JSRs
(at least not as a company) but does quite a bit at Eclipse through Jakarta
EE or MicroProfile. I also initiated a Jakarta EE panel discussion at
Java2Days and topics like JCP vs. Jakarta EE (there are still a few JSRs
like CDI or Bean Validation)
Werner
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:31 PM William Lieurance <
william.lieurance@namikoda.com> wrote:
> Hi Werner,
>
> I've signed up for the JCP as an Associate member. Politics don't really
> bother me. ;-) How would you recommend someone like me get involved in the
> Jakarta EE environment as things are shifting towards that direction?
>
> --William
> ________________________________________
> From: Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 12:12 PM
> To: dev@tamaya.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
>
> William,
>
> Thanks for the reply. Are you a member of the JCP as well? Either Associate
> (contributors can pretty much help with almost everything, too) or Full JCP
> Member?
>
> I'm afraid there's a lot of politics, I just joined the regular Jakarta EE
> Spec Committee call and while I won't disclose more than the minutes should
> document anyway, there is a looming worry, that not only the GroupId has to
> change but also other dependencies including existing JSRs like CDI, etc.
> that use the "javax" package namespace or quote the term "Java" could be at
> risk. That certainly speaks a great bit against JSR 382 which uses the
> "javax" namespace and could mean, Eclipse Foundation would rather have to
> start from scratch or simply derive what was done at MicroProfile Config
> into a new Jakarta.config spec. I cannot say which way it'll happen, but
> there are a lot of things discussed and lawyers promised stuff (I already
> know that kind of "Waiting for Godot" while I was still in the JCP EC and
> Java EE 8 was in a standstill) which nobody dares to make binding decisions
> before they delivered on those promises.
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:51 PM William Lieurance <
> william.lieurance@namikoda.com> wrote:
>
> > *blush* I'm just happy to be able to help.
> >
> > In truth, I think once the substantial api/spi changes that Anatole has
> > mentioned for jsr382 (and I think I saw on a branch accidentally) go in,
> > the biggest thing we are missing is breadth of documentation and even
> more
> > examples. Our current answer of "Go look at the tests" to find how to use
> > tamaya is ok for now but is probably a stumbling block for developers
> > looking for the easiest path to onboard themselves.
> >
> > I'm super interested in helping out with getting jsr382 across the finish
> > line to unblock that effort and then start churning out examples for all
> > the different kinds of uses that tamaya has. I think that's also the way
> to
> > start getting more people using and then ultimately involved with tamaya.
> >
> > --William
> >
> > Sent from a tiny keyboard
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 9:43:13 AM
> > To: dev@tamaya.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
> >
> > Btw both the contribution activity in JSR 382 (see before) and
> MicroProfile
> > Config:
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-config/graphs/contributors
> > have massively decreased since a peak about a year ago.
> > And there are just 2 who contributed more than 5k LOC, 2 (including John)
> > with up to 1.5k LOC and the rests is irrelevant with sometimes only a
> > character or two contributed.
> >
> > Compared to both of them Tamaya looks quite good:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tamaya/graphs/contributors
> > 2 contributed over 20k LOC, 1 over 5k and 2 others over 1.5k over the
> > history of the project.
> >
> > I did not realize how much William has done, so why haven't we voted on
> his
> > committer role already?
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:32 PM Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Phil mentioned two possible committers.
> > > Not sure if they meet requirements by ASF based on their existing
> > > contributions like JIRA, etc. to be nominated right now?
> > >
> > > Anatole mentioned support for both JSR 382 and MicroProfile config.
> > > However the Config standardization efforts are totally fragmented
> between
> > > JSR 382, MicroProfile Config and a few others like DeltaSpike.
> > > MicroProfile Config like most MP efforts is a 1-3 person gig, so not
> much
> > > difference to Tamaya. The JSR is canibalized by that because the same
> > > people have to take care of both:
> > > https://github.com/eclipse/ConfigJSR/graphs/contributors shows there
> are
> > > just 2 who contributed beyond 5k LOC, one about 1.5k and everyone else
> > less
> > > than half of that at most.
> > > The JSR should long have undergone a Renewal Ballot as per JCP.next
> rules
> > > (it's 13 months now since the creation on Oct 9, 2017, JCP.next
> mandates
> > a
> > > Renewal Ballot after 9 months) but nobody seems to have started that,
> nor
> > > is Spec Lead organization Eclipse sure, what to do with it. I know from
> > the
> > > Jakarta EE Spec Committee, that David/Tomitribe put the idea of a
> > > "jakarta.config" on the table, but that has not been decided on either.
> > > MicroProfile Config will never be a "standard", so the decision is
> > between
> > > putting enough life into the JSR to pass the Renewal Ballot and go
> Final
> > > and Withdraw it.
> > >
> > > Then a downstream project like Tamaya had to implement yet another 3rd
> > API
> > > and abandon at least one or both others it used so far.
> > > I don't think the pressure is really on Tamaya at this point and it
> seems
> > > the decisions for the Config spec will be made any time soon.
> > >
> > > So taking the offer of two or three committers looks like a good idea.
> > > IMO I would mention the upstream config API problem in a few words, it
> is
> > > nothing Tamaya itself can solve, but it has an impact also on the pace
> at
> > > which new releases make sense.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Werner
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:50 AM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I've signed off on the report. However, there were a lot of merge
> > >> conflicts so if you could please double check.
> > >>
> > >> I'm concerned about the strength of the project. It's basically a 2
> > >> person
> > >> team. What can we do to try to grow the community?
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:36 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Am 06.11.18 um 22:06 schrieb Justin Mclean:
> > >> > > Just a friendly reminder that the report is due today - don't
> forget
> > >> to
> > >> > submit it.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > done:
> > >> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
> > >> >
> > >> > n8
> > >> > Phil
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by William Lieurance <wi...@namikoda.com>.
Hi Werner,
I've signed up for the JCP as an Associate member. Politics don't really bother me. ;-) How would you recommend someone like me get involved in the Jakarta EE environment as things are shifting towards that direction?
--William
________________________________________
From: Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 12:12 PM
To: dev@tamaya.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
William,
Thanks for the reply. Are you a member of the JCP as well? Either Associate
(contributors can pretty much help with almost everything, too) or Full JCP
Member?
I'm afraid there's a lot of politics, I just joined the regular Jakarta EE
Spec Committee call and while I won't disclose more than the minutes should
document anyway, there is a looming worry, that not only the GroupId has to
change but also other dependencies including existing JSRs like CDI, etc.
that use the "javax" package namespace or quote the term "Java" could be at
risk. That certainly speaks a great bit against JSR 382 which uses the
"javax" namespace and could mean, Eclipse Foundation would rather have to
start from scratch or simply derive what was done at MicroProfile Config
into a new Jakarta.config spec. I cannot say which way it'll happen, but
there are a lot of things discussed and lawyers promised stuff (I already
know that kind of "Waiting for Godot" while I was still in the JCP EC and
Java EE 8 was in a standstill) which nobody dares to make binding decisions
before they delivered on those promises.
Werner
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:51 PM William Lieurance <
william.lieurance@namikoda.com> wrote:
> *blush* I'm just happy to be able to help.
>
> In truth, I think once the substantial api/spi changes that Anatole has
> mentioned for jsr382 (and I think I saw on a branch accidentally) go in,
> the biggest thing we are missing is breadth of documentation and even more
> examples. Our current answer of "Go look at the tests" to find how to use
> tamaya is ok for now but is probably a stumbling block for developers
> looking for the easiest path to onboard themselves.
>
> I'm super interested in helping out with getting jsr382 across the finish
> line to unblock that effort and then start churning out examples for all
> the different kinds of uses that tamaya has. I think that's also the way to
> start getting more people using and then ultimately involved with tamaya.
>
> --William
>
> Sent from a tiny keyboard
>
> ________________________________
> From: Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 9:43:13 AM
> To: dev@tamaya.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
>
> Btw both the contribution activity in JSR 382 (see before) and MicroProfile
> Config: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-config/graphs/contributors
> have massively decreased since a peak about a year ago.
> And there are just 2 who contributed more than 5k LOC, 2 (including John)
> with up to 1.5k LOC and the rests is irrelevant with sometimes only a
> character or two contributed.
>
> Compared to both of them Tamaya looks quite good:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-tamaya/graphs/contributors
> 2 contributed over 20k LOC, 1 over 5k and 2 others over 1.5k over the
> history of the project.
>
> I did not realize how much William has done, so why haven't we voted on his
> committer role already?
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:32 PM Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Phil mentioned two possible committers.
> > Not sure if they meet requirements by ASF based on their existing
> > contributions like JIRA, etc. to be nominated right now?
> >
> > Anatole mentioned support for both JSR 382 and MicroProfile config.
> > However the Config standardization efforts are totally fragmented between
> > JSR 382, MicroProfile Config and a few others like DeltaSpike.
> > MicroProfile Config like most MP efforts is a 1-3 person gig, so not much
> > difference to Tamaya. The JSR is canibalized by that because the same
> > people have to take care of both:
> > https://github.com/eclipse/ConfigJSR/graphs/contributors shows there are
> > just 2 who contributed beyond 5k LOC, one about 1.5k and everyone else
> less
> > than half of that at most.
> > The JSR should long have undergone a Renewal Ballot as per JCP.next rules
> > (it's 13 months now since the creation on Oct 9, 2017, JCP.next mandates
> a
> > Renewal Ballot after 9 months) but nobody seems to have started that, nor
> > is Spec Lead organization Eclipse sure, what to do with it. I know from
> the
> > Jakarta EE Spec Committee, that David/Tomitribe put the idea of a
> > "jakarta.config" on the table, but that has not been decided on either.
> > MicroProfile Config will never be a "standard", so the decision is
> between
> > putting enough life into the JSR to pass the Renewal Ballot and go Final
> > and Withdraw it.
> >
> > Then a downstream project like Tamaya had to implement yet another 3rd
> API
> > and abandon at least one or both others it used so far.
> > I don't think the pressure is really on Tamaya at this point and it seems
> > the decisions for the Config spec will be made any time soon.
> >
> > So taking the offer of two or three committers looks like a good idea.
> > IMO I would mention the upstream config API problem in a few words, it is
> > nothing Tamaya itself can solve, but it has an impact also on the pace at
> > which new releases make sense.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:50 AM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I've signed off on the report. However, there were a lot of merge
> >> conflicts so if you could please double check.
> >>
> >> I'm concerned about the strength of the project. It's basically a 2
> >> person
> >> team. What can we do to try to grow the community?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:36 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Am 06.11.18 um 22:06 schrieb Justin Mclean:
> >> > > Just a friendly reminder that the report is due today - don't forget
> >> to
> >> > submit it.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > done:
> >> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
> >> >
> >> > n8
> >> > Phil
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
William,
Thanks for the reply. Are you a member of the JCP as well? Either Associate
(contributors can pretty much help with almost everything, too) or Full JCP
Member?
I'm afraid there's a lot of politics, I just joined the regular Jakarta EE
Spec Committee call and while I won't disclose more than the minutes should
document anyway, there is a looming worry, that not only the GroupId has to
change but also other dependencies including existing JSRs like CDI, etc.
that use the "javax" package namespace or quote the term "Java" could be at
risk. That certainly speaks a great bit against JSR 382 which uses the
"javax" namespace and could mean, Eclipse Foundation would rather have to
start from scratch or simply derive what was done at MicroProfile Config
into a new Jakarta.config spec. I cannot say which way it'll happen, but
there are a lot of things discussed and lawyers promised stuff (I already
know that kind of "Waiting for Godot" while I was still in the JCP EC and
Java EE 8 was in a standstill) which nobody dares to make binding decisions
before they delivered on those promises.
Werner
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:51 PM William Lieurance <
william.lieurance@namikoda.com> wrote:
> *blush* I'm just happy to be able to help.
>
> In truth, I think once the substantial api/spi changes that Anatole has
> mentioned for jsr382 (and I think I saw on a branch accidentally) go in,
> the biggest thing we are missing is breadth of documentation and even more
> examples. Our current answer of "Go look at the tests" to find how to use
> tamaya is ok for now but is probably a stumbling block for developers
> looking for the easiest path to onboard themselves.
>
> I'm super interested in helping out with getting jsr382 across the finish
> line to unblock that effort and then start churning out examples for all
> the different kinds of uses that tamaya has. I think that's also the way to
> start getting more people using and then ultimately involved with tamaya.
>
> --William
>
> Sent from a tiny keyboard
>
> ________________________________
> From: Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 9:43:13 AM
> To: dev@tamaya.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
>
> Btw both the contribution activity in JSR 382 (see before) and MicroProfile
> Config: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-config/graphs/contributors
> have massively decreased since a peak about a year ago.
> And there are just 2 who contributed more than 5k LOC, 2 (including John)
> with up to 1.5k LOC and the rests is irrelevant with sometimes only a
> character or two contributed.
>
> Compared to both of them Tamaya looks quite good:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-tamaya/graphs/contributors
> 2 contributed over 20k LOC, 1 over 5k and 2 others over 1.5k over the
> history of the project.
>
> I did not realize how much William has done, so why haven't we voted on his
> committer role already?
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:32 PM Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Phil mentioned two possible committers.
> > Not sure if they meet requirements by ASF based on their existing
> > contributions like JIRA, etc. to be nominated right now?
> >
> > Anatole mentioned support for both JSR 382 and MicroProfile config.
> > However the Config standardization efforts are totally fragmented between
> > JSR 382, MicroProfile Config and a few others like DeltaSpike.
> > MicroProfile Config like most MP efforts is a 1-3 person gig, so not much
> > difference to Tamaya. The JSR is canibalized by that because the same
> > people have to take care of both:
> > https://github.com/eclipse/ConfigJSR/graphs/contributors shows there are
> > just 2 who contributed beyond 5k LOC, one about 1.5k and everyone else
> less
> > than half of that at most.
> > The JSR should long have undergone a Renewal Ballot as per JCP.next rules
> > (it's 13 months now since the creation on Oct 9, 2017, JCP.next mandates
> a
> > Renewal Ballot after 9 months) but nobody seems to have started that, nor
> > is Spec Lead organization Eclipse sure, what to do with it. I know from
> the
> > Jakarta EE Spec Committee, that David/Tomitribe put the idea of a
> > "jakarta.config" on the table, but that has not been decided on either.
> > MicroProfile Config will never be a "standard", so the decision is
> between
> > putting enough life into the JSR to pass the Renewal Ballot and go Final
> > and Withdraw it.
> >
> > Then a downstream project like Tamaya had to implement yet another 3rd
> API
> > and abandon at least one or both others it used so far.
> > I don't think the pressure is really on Tamaya at this point and it seems
> > the decisions for the Config spec will be made any time soon.
> >
> > So taking the offer of two or three committers looks like a good idea.
> > IMO I would mention the upstream config API problem in a few words, it is
> > nothing Tamaya itself can solve, but it has an impact also on the pace at
> > which new releases make sense.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:50 AM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I've signed off on the report. However, there were a lot of merge
> >> conflicts so if you could please double check.
> >>
> >> I'm concerned about the strength of the project. It's basically a 2
> >> person
> >> team. What can we do to try to grow the community?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:36 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Am 06.11.18 um 22:06 schrieb Justin Mclean:
> >> > > Just a friendly reminder that the report is due today - don't forget
> >> to
> >> > submit it.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > done:
> >> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
> >> >
> >> > n8
> >> > Phil
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by William Lieurance <wi...@namikoda.com>.
*blush* I'm just happy to be able to help.
In truth, I think once the substantial api/spi changes that Anatole has mentioned for jsr382 (and I think I saw on a branch accidentally) go in, the biggest thing we are missing is breadth of documentation and even more examples. Our current answer of "Go look at the tests" to find how to use tamaya is ok for now but is probably a stumbling block for developers looking for the easiest path to onboard themselves.
I'm super interested in helping out with getting jsr382 across the finish line to unblock that effort and then start churning out examples for all the different kinds of uses that tamaya has. I think that's also the way to start getting more people using and then ultimately involved with tamaya.
--William
Sent from a tiny keyboard
________________________________
From: Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 9:43:13 AM
To: dev@tamaya.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Btw both the contribution activity in JSR 382 (see before) and MicroProfile
Config: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-config/graphs/contributors
have massively decreased since a peak about a year ago.
And there are just 2 who contributed more than 5k LOC, 2 (including John)
with up to 1.5k LOC and the rests is irrelevant with sometimes only a
character or two contributed.
Compared to both of them Tamaya looks quite good:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tamaya/graphs/contributors
2 contributed over 20k LOC, 1 over 5k and 2 others over 1.5k over the
history of the project.
I did not realize how much William has done, so why haven't we voted on his
committer role already?
Werner
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:32 PM Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phil mentioned two possible committers.
> Not sure if they meet requirements by ASF based on their existing
> contributions like JIRA, etc. to be nominated right now?
>
> Anatole mentioned support for both JSR 382 and MicroProfile config.
> However the Config standardization efforts are totally fragmented between
> JSR 382, MicroProfile Config and a few others like DeltaSpike.
> MicroProfile Config like most MP efforts is a 1-3 person gig, so not much
> difference to Tamaya. The JSR is canibalized by that because the same
> people have to take care of both:
> https://github.com/eclipse/ConfigJSR/graphs/contributors shows there are
> just 2 who contributed beyond 5k LOC, one about 1.5k and everyone else less
> than half of that at most.
> The JSR should long have undergone a Renewal Ballot as per JCP.next rules
> (it's 13 months now since the creation on Oct 9, 2017, JCP.next mandates a
> Renewal Ballot after 9 months) but nobody seems to have started that, nor
> is Spec Lead organization Eclipse sure, what to do with it. I know from the
> Jakarta EE Spec Committee, that David/Tomitribe put the idea of a
> "jakarta.config" on the table, but that has not been decided on either.
> MicroProfile Config will never be a "standard", so the decision is between
> putting enough life into the JSR to pass the Renewal Ballot and go Final
> and Withdraw it.
>
> Then a downstream project like Tamaya had to implement yet another 3rd API
> and abandon at least one or both others it used so far.
> I don't think the pressure is really on Tamaya at this point and it seems
> the decisions for the Config spec will be made any time soon.
>
> So taking the offer of two or three committers looks like a good idea.
> IMO I would mention the upstream config API problem in a few words, it is
> nothing Tamaya itself can solve, but it has an impact also on the pace at
> which new releases make sense.
>
> Regards,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:50 AM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I've signed off on the report. However, there were a lot of merge
>> conflicts so if you could please double check.
>>
>> I'm concerned about the strength of the project. It's basically a 2
>> person
>> team. What can we do to try to grow the community?
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:36 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Am 06.11.18 um 22:06 schrieb Justin Mclean:
>> > > Just a friendly reminder that the report is due today - don't forget
>> to
>> > submit it.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > done:
>> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
>> >
>> > n8
>> > Phil
>> >
>>
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
Btw both the contribution activity in JSR 382 (see before) and MicroProfile
Config: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-config/graphs/contributors
have massively decreased since a peak about a year ago.
And there are just 2 who contributed more than 5k LOC, 2 (including John)
with up to 1.5k LOC and the rests is irrelevant with sometimes only a
character or two contributed.
Compared to both of them Tamaya looks quite good:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tamaya/graphs/contributors
2 contributed over 20k LOC, 1 over 5k and 2 others over 1.5k over the
history of the project.
I did not realize how much William has done, so why haven't we voted on his
committer role already?
Werner
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:32 PM Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phil mentioned two possible committers.
> Not sure if they meet requirements by ASF based on their existing
> contributions like JIRA, etc. to be nominated right now?
>
> Anatole mentioned support for both JSR 382 and MicroProfile config.
> However the Config standardization efforts are totally fragmented between
> JSR 382, MicroProfile Config and a few others like DeltaSpike.
> MicroProfile Config like most MP efforts is a 1-3 person gig, so not much
> difference to Tamaya. The JSR is canibalized by that because the same
> people have to take care of both:
> https://github.com/eclipse/ConfigJSR/graphs/contributors shows there are
> just 2 who contributed beyond 5k LOC, one about 1.5k and everyone else less
> than half of that at most.
> The JSR should long have undergone a Renewal Ballot as per JCP.next rules
> (it's 13 months now since the creation on Oct 9, 2017, JCP.next mandates a
> Renewal Ballot after 9 months) but nobody seems to have started that, nor
> is Spec Lead organization Eclipse sure, what to do with it. I know from the
> Jakarta EE Spec Committee, that David/Tomitribe put the idea of a
> "jakarta.config" on the table, but that has not been decided on either.
> MicroProfile Config will never be a "standard", so the decision is between
> putting enough life into the JSR to pass the Renewal Ballot and go Final
> and Withdraw it.
>
> Then a downstream project like Tamaya had to implement yet another 3rd API
> and abandon at least one or both others it used so far.
> I don't think the pressure is really on Tamaya at this point and it seems
> the decisions for the Config spec will be made any time soon.
>
> So taking the offer of two or three committers looks like a good idea.
> IMO I would mention the upstream config API problem in a few words, it is
> nothing Tamaya itself can solve, but it has an impact also on the pace at
> which new releases make sense.
>
> Regards,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:50 AM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I've signed off on the report. However, there were a lot of merge
>> conflicts so if you could please double check.
>>
>> I'm concerned about the strength of the project. It's basically a 2
>> person
>> team. What can we do to try to grow the community?
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:36 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Am 06.11.18 um 22:06 schrieb Justin Mclean:
>> > > Just a friendly reminder that the report is due today - don't forget
>> to
>> > submit it.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > done:
>> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
>> >
>> > n8
>> > Phil
>> >
>>
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
Phil mentioned two possible committers.
Not sure if they meet requirements by ASF based on their existing
contributions like JIRA, etc. to be nominated right now?
Anatole mentioned support for both JSR 382 and MicroProfile config.
However the Config standardization efforts are totally fragmented between
JSR 382, MicroProfile Config and a few others like DeltaSpike.
MicroProfile Config like most MP efforts is a 1-3 person gig, so not much
difference to Tamaya. The JSR is canibalized by that because the same
people have to take care of both:
https://github.com/eclipse/ConfigJSR/graphs/contributors shows there are
just 2 who contributed beyond 5k LOC, one about 1.5k and everyone else less
than half of that at most.
The JSR should long have undergone a Renewal Ballot as per JCP.next rules
(it's 13 months now since the creation on Oct 9, 2017, JCP.next mandates a
Renewal Ballot after 9 months) but nobody seems to have started that, nor
is Spec Lead organization Eclipse sure, what to do with it. I know from the
Jakarta EE Spec Committee, that David/Tomitribe put the idea of a
"jakarta.config" on the table, but that has not been decided on either.
MicroProfile Config will never be a "standard", so the decision is between
putting enough life into the JSR to pass the Renewal Ballot and go Final
and Withdraw it.
Then a downstream project like Tamaya had to implement yet another 3rd API
and abandon at least one or both others it used so far.
I don't think the pressure is really on Tamaya at this point and it seems
the decisions for the Config spec will be made any time soon.
So taking the offer of two or three committers looks like a good idea.
IMO I would mention the upstream config API problem in a few words, it is
nothing Tamaya itself can solve, but it has an impact also on the pace at
which new releases make sense.
Regards,
Werner
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:50 AM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've signed off on the report. However, there were a lot of merge
> conflicts so if you could please double check.
>
> I'm concerned about the strength of the project. It's basically a 2 person
> team. What can we do to try to grow the community?
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:36 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Am 06.11.18 um 22:06 schrieb Justin Mclean:
> > > Just a friendly reminder that the report is due today - don't forget to
> > submit it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > done:
> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
> >
> > n8
> > Phil
> >
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I've signed off on the report. However, there were a lot of merge
conflicts so if you could please double check.
I'm concerned about the strength of the project. It's basically a 2 person
team. What can we do to try to grow the community?
John
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:36 PM P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> Am 06.11.18 um 22:06 schrieb Justin Mclean:
> > Just a friendly reminder that the report is due today - don't forget to
> submit it.
>
> Thanks,
> done:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
>
> n8
> Phil
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>.
Am 06.11.18 um 22:06 schrieb Justin Mclean:
> Just a friendly reminder that the report is due today - don't forget to submit it.
Thanks,
done:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
n8
Phil
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by Justin Mclean <jm...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Just a friendly reminder that the report is due today - don't forget to submit it.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dave.
Thats exactly what we are currently doing. Code wise only a few things are
missing. The new features allow also to proof our project in more complex
scenarios, eg as layer in tomcat for cluster config. this can be blogged
about as an example. Similarly we will approach people also known to work
with config topics and currently are in vontact with our contributors...
Best
Anatole
Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> schrieb am Mo., 5. Nov. 2018, 18:34:
> Hi -
>
> I was assigned to shepherd Tamaya's report for November.
>
> I reviewed your private@ and dev@ emails for the last several months. I
> would suggest the following for your 3 tasks to graduate - I am being more
> specific:
>
> (1) Grow the PPMC from the existing community.
> (2) Make another Release
> (3) Blog about Tamaya
>
> Also, if there are issues with lack of Mentors you should note this in the
> report. I don't know that you need any more. I think you just need to be
> more confident in being ready to graduate with a small PMC.
>
> Some of what I think you are encountering is a classic "chicken vs. egg".
> Try to graduate in the next few months!
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On 2018/11/04 20:35:36, "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi *,
> >
> > if there are no objections I'd like to file the following report in:
> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Phil
> >
> > <snip>
> > Tamaya
> >
> > Tamaya is a highly flexible configuration solution based on an modular,
> > extensible and injectable key/value based design, which should provide a
> > minimal but extendible modern and functional API leveraging SE, ME and
> > EE environments.
> >
> > Tamaya has been incubating since 2014-11-14.
> >
> > Three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation:
> >
> > 1.Rework project homepage, provide easier onboarding information.
> > 2.Grow community
> > 3.Do more press work to spread the word about Tamaya's mission
> >
> > Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC) or ASF Board wish/need to be
> > aware of?
> >
> > * We'd like to graduate soon and plan some reworks to access a broader
> > audience and collect new contributors/people interested in the project.
> >
> > How has the community developed since the last report?
> >
> > * frequent bugreports and discussions via Jira/mailing list
> > * new external contributions
> >
> > How has the project developed since the last report?
> >
> > How would you assess the podling's maturity?
> > Please feel free to add your own commentary.
> >
> > [ ] Initial setup
> > [ ] Working towards first release
> > [X] Community building
> > [X] Nearing graduation
> > [ ] Other:
> >
> > Date of last release:
> >
> > 2017-05-28 0.3-incubating
> >
> > When were the last committers or PPMC members elected?
> >
> > * P. Ottlinger at 2016-04-24.
> >
> > Have your mentors been helpful and responsive or are things falling
> > through the cracks? In the latter case, please list any open issues
> > that need to be addressed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by:
> >
> > [ ](tamaya) John D. Ament
> > Comments:
> > [ ](tamaya) David Blevins
> > Comments:
> >
> > </snip>
> >
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
Hi -
I was assigned to shepherd Tamaya's report for November.
I reviewed your private@ and dev@ emails for the last several months. I would suggest the following for your 3 tasks to graduate - I am being more specific:
(1) Grow the PPMC from the existing community.
(2) Make another Release
(3) Blog about Tamaya
Also, if there are issues with lack of Mentors you should note this in the report. I don't know that you need any more. I think you just need to be more confident in being ready to graduate with a small PMC.
Some of what I think you are encountering is a classic "chicken vs. egg". Try to graduate in the next few months!
Regards,
Dave
On 2018/11/04 20:35:36, "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> if there are no objections I'd like to file the following report in:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2018
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
>
> <snip>
> Tamaya
>
> Tamaya is a highly flexible configuration solution based on an modular,
> extensible and injectable key/value based design, which should provide a
> minimal but extendible modern and functional API leveraging SE, ME and
> EE environments.
>
> Tamaya has been incubating since 2014-11-14.
>
> Three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation:
>
> 1.Rework project homepage, provide easier onboarding information.
> 2.Grow community
> 3.Do more press work to spread the word about Tamaya's mission
>
> Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC) or ASF Board wish/need to be
> aware of?
>
> * We'd like to graduate soon and plan some reworks to access a broader
> audience and collect new contributors/people interested in the project.
>
> How has the community developed since the last report?
>
> * frequent bugreports and discussions via Jira/mailing list
> * new external contributions
>
> How has the project developed since the last report?
>
> How would you assess the podling's maturity?
> Please feel free to add your own commentary.
>
> [ ] Initial setup
> [ ] Working towards first release
> [X] Community building
> [X] Nearing graduation
> [ ] Other:
>
> Date of last release:
>
> 2017-05-28 0.3-incubating
>
> When were the last committers or PPMC members elected?
>
> * P. Ottlinger at 2016-04-24.
>
> Have your mentors been helpful and responsive or are things falling
> through the cracks? In the latter case, please list any open issues
> that need to be addressed.
>
> Signed-off-by:
>
> [ ](tamaya) John D. Ament
> Comments:
> [ ](tamaya) David Blevins
> Comments:
>
> </snip>
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org>.
Dear Justin,
thanks for the reminder - I augmented the report with:
<snip>
Have your mentors been helpful and responsive or are things falling
through the cracks? In the latter case, please list any open issues
that need to be addressed.
* John is and was the onliest active mentor and answers questions or
gives hints for quite a while.
* As the project needs a wider audience, maybe mentors with interest
in Tamaya would be welcome.
</snip>
hoping this is okay.
Phil
Am 08.11.18 um 07:15 schrieb Justin Mclean:
> Hi,
>
> Would be good if you also answered this question in the report:
>> Have your mentors been helpful and responsive or are things falling
>> through the cracks? In the latter case, please list any open issues
>> that need to be addressed.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
We discussed this a while ago that the mentors have not been available in
most cases.
Werner
Am Do., 8. Nov. 2018, 07:15 hat Justin Mclean <jm...@apache.org>
geschrieben:
> Hi,
>
> Would be good if you also answered this question in the report:
> > Have your mentors been helpful and responsive or are things falling
> > through the cracks? In the latter case, please list any open issues
> > that need to be addressed.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
Re: RFC: Draft for report - will submit at 2018-11-06
Posted by Justin Mclean <jm...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Would be good if you also answered this question in the report:
> Have your mentors been helpful and responsive or are things falling
> through the cracks? In the latter case, please list any open issues
> that need to be addressed.
Thanks,
Justin