You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org> on 2008/01/03 10:00:31 UTC
[all] releasing a nearly dormant project (was Re: [exec] how to proceed for a nearly dormant project)
>>> Exec would need to migrate to proper first.
>>
> According to the website moving to proper requires an "active group
> of committers" - I hardly qualifiy for that so I'm sort of stuck
That was my concern
> Therefore I see two options
>
> +) one existing committer teams up with me (preferred but rather
> unlikely looking at the recent activity)
> +) I leave commons-exec at it is in the sandbox and push out a
> SNAPSHOT release
IMO a SNAPSHOT release is not really what we want. But I guess we (as
a community) need to discuss situations like these. The definition of
active committers is rather vague in this context. After all we have
quite some "one man shows" where other committers just help out. But
not releasing "exec" does not sounds like a better option either.
Thoughts?
cheers
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] releasing a nearly dormant project (was Re: [exec] how to proceed for a nearly dormant project)
Posted by Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>.
On 03.01.2008, at 11:14, luc.maisonobe@free.fr wrote:
> Selon Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>:
>
>>>>> Exec would need to migrate to proper first.
>>>>
>>> According to the website moving to proper requires an "active group
>>> of committers" - I hardly qualifiy for that so I'm sort of stuck
>>
>> That was my concern
>>
>>> Therefore I see two options
>>>
>>> +) one existing committer teams up with me (preferred but rather
>>> unlikely looking at the recent activity)
>>> +) I leave commons-exec at it is in the sandbox and push out a
>>> SNAPSHOT release
>>
>> IMO a SNAPSHOT release is not really what we want. But I guess we (as
>> a community) need to discuss situations like these. The definition of
>> active committers is rather vague in this context. After all we have
>> quite some "one man shows" where other committers just help out. But
>> not releasing "exec" does not sounds like a better option either.
>
> I don't think releasing a snapshot is a good idea. If we consider
> [exec] is
> ready for proper, it should really be migrated.
>
> I am interested in this component, I am a commiter for [math] and
> also a (very
> novice) PMC. I am willing to help. My available time is quite
> scarce, but I hope
> I will be able to do something.
I won't become heavily "active" but also might help with applying
patches and the like.
cheers
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] releasing a nearly dormant project (was Re: [exec] how to proceed for a nearly dormant project)
Posted by lu...@free.fr.
Selon Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org>:
> >>> Exec would need to migrate to proper first.
> >>
> > According to the website moving to proper requires an "active group
> > of committers" - I hardly qualifiy for that so I'm sort of stuck
>
> That was my concern
>
> > Therefore I see two options
> >
> > +) one existing committer teams up with me (preferred but rather
> > unlikely looking at the recent activity)
> > +) I leave commons-exec at it is in the sandbox and push out a
> > SNAPSHOT release
>
> IMO a SNAPSHOT release is not really what we want. But I guess we (as
> a community) need to discuss situations like these. The definition of
> active committers is rather vague in this context. After all we have
> quite some "one man shows" where other committers just help out. But
> not releasing "exec" does not sounds like a better option either.
I don't think releasing a snapshot is a good idea. If we consider [exec] is
ready for proper, it should really be migrated.
I am interested in this component, I am a commiter for [math] and also a (very
novice) PMC. I am willing to help. My available time is quite scarce, but I hope
I will be able to do something.
Luc
>
> Thoughts?
>
> cheers
> --
> Torsten
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] releasing a nearly dormant project (was Re: [exec] how to proceed for a nearly dormant project)
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com>.
--- Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm always interested, but it's always been
> somewhere down my list of
> priorities :(
>
I'm in a similar boat with Brett. I am fairly
familiar with the pre-fork version of this code and
would be available as a contingency resource if
nothing else.
> If Siegfried is able to drive it to release quality,
> I can likely
> start using it in a number of places which will
> increase my
> involvement.
>
There was talk about migrating Ant to use [exec] once
it had baked, IIRC; the holdup is that Ant's status as
a build tool has always mandated that it have
negligible dependencies. This would mean we would
want to use some sort of svn or other trickery to
accomplish this. An external might suffice, but other
ideas are welcome at dev@ant.a.o. :)
-Matt
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 04/01/2008, Niall Pemberton
> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 2008 9:00 AM, Torsten Curdt
> <tc...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>> Exec would need to migrate to proper first.
> > > >>
> > > > According to the website moving to proper
> requires an "active group
> > > > of committers" - I hardly qualifiy for that so
> I'm sort of stuck
> > >
> > > That was my concern
> > >
> > > > Therefore I see two options
> > > >
> > > > +) one existing committer teams up with me
> (preferred but rather
> > > > unlikely looking at the recent activity)
> > > > +) I leave commons-exec at it is in the
> sandbox and push out a
> > > > SNAPSHOT release
> > >
> > > IMO a SNAPSHOT release is not really what we
> want. But I guess we (as
> > > a community) need to discuss situations like
> these. The definition of
> > > active committers is rather vague in this
> context. After all we have
> > > quite some "one man shows" where other
> committers just help out. But
> > > not releasing "exec" does not sounds like a
> better option either.
> >
> > I agree the only option is really to propose
> promoting exec to become
> > a proper component and then release. For me the
> question is how likely
> > is Siegfried to stick around to support it? I
> would hate to see it
> > promoted and then it go inactive again shortly
> after. I know
> > circumstances change and there are no binding
> commitments here - but
> > stating an intention to stick around and look
> after it when proposing
> > promotion would make me more likely to vote for it
> (plus yours and
> > Luc's semi-interest helps). Looking at the commit
> logs, the people to
> > last work on actual code were Niklas Gustavsson
> (July 2006), Trygve
> > Laugstoul (Sept 2005) and Brett Porter (August
> 2005) - perhaps it
> > would be also worth pinging them to see if their
> interest can be
> > revived.
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > cheers
> > > --
> > > Torsten
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] releasing a nearly dormant project (was Re: [exec] how to proceed for a nearly dormant project)
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
I'm always interested, but it's always been somewhere down my list of
priorities :(
If Siegfried is able to drive it to release quality, I can likely
start using it in a number of places which will increase my
involvement.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Brett
On 04/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 9:00 AM, Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>> Exec would need to migrate to proper first.
> > >>
> > > According to the website moving to proper requires an "active group
> > > of committers" - I hardly qualifiy for that so I'm sort of stuck
> >
> > That was my concern
> >
> > > Therefore I see two options
> > >
> > > +) one existing committer teams up with me (preferred but rather
> > > unlikely looking at the recent activity)
> > > +) I leave commons-exec at it is in the sandbox and push out a
> > > SNAPSHOT release
> >
> > IMO a SNAPSHOT release is not really what we want. But I guess we (as
> > a community) need to discuss situations like these. The definition of
> > active committers is rather vague in this context. After all we have
> > quite some "one man shows" where other committers just help out. But
> > not releasing "exec" does not sounds like a better option either.
>
> I agree the only option is really to propose promoting exec to become
> a proper component and then release. For me the question is how likely
> is Siegfried to stick around to support it? I would hate to see it
> promoted and then it go inactive again shortly after. I know
> circumstances change and there are no binding commitments here - but
> stating an intention to stick around and look after it when proposing
> promotion would make me more likely to vote for it (plus yours and
> Luc's semi-interest helps). Looking at the commit logs, the people to
> last work on actual code were Niklas Gustavsson (July 2006), Trygve
> Laugstoul (Sept 2005) and Brett Porter (August 2005) - perhaps it
> would be also worth pinging them to see if their interest can be
> revived.
>
> Niall
>
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > cheers
> > --
> > Torsten
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
Brett Porter
Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] releasing a nearly dormant project (was Re: [exec] how
to proceed for a nearly dormant project)
Posted by Siegfried Goeschl <si...@it20one.at>.
Hi folks,
thanks for your help in promoting commons-exec - I would like to discuss
a few of the points mentioned in the emails
+) "how long is Siegfried sticking around" - well, I can't give you any
binding commitments and you don't expect one. I need a properly working
commons-exec for my company, I was annoyed enough with the broken code
to sit down and it is actually small enough to cram the working hours
past midnight when my family is asleep ... :-)
+) as mentioned before the project should not be a "one man show" - with
your help it is not any longer. And looking how many projects are
handling external processes inproperly I see a lot of people in need of
a poperly working and maintained commons-exec
What I would like to do the next few weeks
+) clean up the remaining code
+) do field testing on Mac, Linux and Windows to ensure a certain quality
+) setup a WIKI page
+) write a tutorial
When all of these things are done we should have a look at the promotion
....
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 1/3/08, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip/>
>
>> I would hate to see it
>> promoted and then it go inactive again shortly after. I know
>> circumstances change and there are no binding commitments here - but
>> stating an intention to stick around and look after it when proposing
>> promotion would make me more likely to vote for it
>>
> <snap/>
>
> That sums it up for me as well.
>
> -Rahul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] releasing a nearly dormant project (was Re: [exec] how to proceed for a nearly dormant project)
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 1/3/08, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip/>
> I would hate to see it
> promoted and then it go inactive again shortly after. I know
> circumstances change and there are no binding commitments here - but
> stating an intention to stick around and look after it when proposing
> promotion would make me more likely to vote for it
<snap/>
That sums it up for me as well.
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] releasing a nearly dormant project (was Re: [exec] how to proceed for a nearly dormant project)
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 3, 2008 9:00 AM, Torsten Curdt <tc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> Exec would need to migrate to proper first.
> >>
> > According to the website moving to proper requires an "active group
> > of committers" - I hardly qualifiy for that so I'm sort of stuck
>
> That was my concern
>
> > Therefore I see two options
> >
> > +) one existing committer teams up with me (preferred but rather
> > unlikely looking at the recent activity)
> > +) I leave commons-exec at it is in the sandbox and push out a
> > SNAPSHOT release
>
> IMO a SNAPSHOT release is not really what we want. But I guess we (as
> a community) need to discuss situations like these. The definition of
> active committers is rather vague in this context. After all we have
> quite some "one man shows" where other committers just help out. But
> not releasing "exec" does not sounds like a better option either.
I agree the only option is really to propose promoting exec to become
a proper component and then release. For me the question is how likely
is Siegfried to stick around to support it? I would hate to see it
promoted and then it go inactive again shortly after. I know
circumstances change and there are no binding commitments here - but
stating an intention to stick around and look after it when proposing
promotion would make me more likely to vote for it (plus yours and
Luc's semi-interest helps). Looking at the commit logs, the people to
last work on actual code were Niklas Gustavsson (July 2006), Trygve
Laugstoul (Sept 2005) and Brett Porter (August 2005) - perhaps it
would be also worth pinging them to see if their interest can be
revived.
Niall
> Thoughts?
>
> cheers
> --
> Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org