commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <>
Subject RE: [all] Together, and bricks apart
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:14:42 GMT

I would be willing to help with commons functor, as I have found it useful
in the past and I have familiarity with it.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Roberts [] 
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:31 AM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: [all] Together, and bricks apart

+1 (can't really say non-binding ;-)

Would also like to help revive sandbox functor if I have time. Whats needs
to be done to get it this project into commons proper and build a community?

Someone else made the point that it would be good to know what needs to be
done to make a release. I agree that would useful (wiki?) (I'll take another

I still think it would be good to have a set of standard functors
interfaces. Functor based programming in java is verbose enough without
having to wrap implementations. I know people have said these are different
but there are in fact quite a few similarities (e.g. composition functions).


-----Original Message-----
From: Niall Pemberton [] 
Sent: 01 December 2005 08:40
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [all] Together, and bricks apart

On 12/1/05, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Martin Cooper <> wrote:
> > On 11/30/05, Niall Pemberton <> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/1/05, Stephen Colebourne <> wrote:
> > > > Release managers are also facing tougher release checkers now IMHO.
> > > > instance, I haven't ignored configuration, but haven't had the time
> > > > check it out properly (way too much to do). I try to only give a +1
if I
> > > > genuinely am happy. Perhaps I'm now applying too high a standard?
Its a
> > > > tough balance.
> > >
> > > Adding to what Stephen said, voting +1 to me means at a minimum you're
> > > indicating knowledge of the code and/or an intention to support it in
> > > some way. For me I can do that on only 3 to 5 of the Commons
> > > components. A good example is FileUpload - as a user I would like to
> > > see a release, but I only recently looked at a bit of the code and
> > > made a minor contribution. When it comes to a vote I'm not sure
> > > whether I'll vote for it or not as I don't think I have the time to
> > > actually provide any support. Is this the generally accepted criteria
> > > or do others follow more or less lenient criteria?
> >
> >
> > I think most people voting +1 are _not_ saying they're prepared to
> > it. Rather, they're saying something more like "I've checked out the
> > proposed distribution, and didn't see any issues, so I'm happy for the
> > Commons Foo team to release it as is". How much work is behind each +1
> > sure varies from person to person. Some, like Stephen, are putting more
> > effort into checking out the builds than they used to, while I'm sure
> > are more lenient.
> >
> > I hope I'm not wrong on this. If I am, and you're right, Niall, then I
> > as well give up on ever getting another FileUpload release out the door,
> > based on how few people other than myself have ever touched the code
> > over the last several years.
> >
> > --
> For me +1 means pretty much what Martin describes above.  I check the
> release contents, make sure required elements are there and in jars,
> make sure there is nothing funny included.  I test the builds,
> validate sigs, etc and inspect the web site and, if present,
> clirr/jdiff and look carefully at the release notes.  I also review
> the javadoc, maven reports and POM.   I do try to learn a little more
> with each release that I review; but at this point I can only provide
> support for a handful of commons components personally, so my +1
> really just means I have validated the release and based on what I see
> and have seen on the list the release is good to go.
> I have been derelict over the past couple of weeks though, due to this
> being a very busy time of year and my trying to get [math] released.
> I will review the outstanding candidates ASAP.

OK this is good to know - "checking a release" is doable. I think I'd
come to the view I had based on the type of thing people put in a

[ ] +1 I support this release and am willing to help
[ ] +0 I support this release and am unable to help

The difference between +1 and +0 here implies some further commitment
after the vote.


> Phil

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message