incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Date Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:10:16 GMT
"I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ?  Rest assured, 
there is no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid 
of yesterday's lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look 
at/discuss/ooh and aah it and can more clearly grasp what we need to 
move over.  Especially since you are most knowledgable about what is no 
longer important.  The first action on "How do we move 500K of text 
over?" is "How do we make it 200K of text?"  It's harder to focus on the 
say 6 issues that matter if they must always be interspersed with 15 
items nobody cares about.

I think there are two more changes needed for that site:

1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now 
moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions 
of JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information 
becomes obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to 
stop acting like it's the main website for JSPWiki.

2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu items 
(and their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly 
give the appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the 
latter category have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki 
site:  News, Recent Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel, 
Mailing List, Weblog, Getting Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs, 
Report new bug, New Ideas?, What's up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo.  
If there's any information on those pages that you would like to see 
moved first to the Apache site (I don't see any myself), we can keep 
those particular links until we move the data over.  But for links for 
which you're in agreement with me are obsolete, it would be great to 
delete them now so they don't continue to serve as distractions.

Regards,
Glen


On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki
;-)
>
> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved.
>
> /Janne
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<glen.mazza@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the 20-60% of the
site that is obsolete today.  Let's shrink the problem and see where we are after that.  At
any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/, as you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable
for us.  Maybe we should just shut it down.  If we create our own Wiki (with everything henceforth
Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will probably repopulate with the most
useful material that was on the old site anyway.  I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org
 *can* be transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>>
>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/  be donated to Apache or does
it have the same copyright problem ashttp://www.jspwiki.org/  ?  It would be nice if we could
movehttp://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/  to the Apache site.
>>
>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the
word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain."  Not necessarily, Apache doesn't ownwww.chemistry.com,www.tomcat.com,www.pig.com,www.chemistry.org,www.camel.com,
and probably many others.  I think the main thing though is that the site can't act like it's
the Apache product. With the two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just
be able to release the domain instead of giving it to Apache.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the word
JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain.  I can't recall whether I already did the
paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it was needed in the first place, but I think
the consensus was that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing
but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something.
>>>
>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed copyrights),
so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their server under some other domain
name (or ASF graciously allows the use of old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore
for legal reasons.
>>>
>>> /Janne
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<glen.mazza@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out
of incubation.  Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache site and our informal
Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to Finnish legal reasons.
>>>>
>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party
site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki committer doesn't matter,
it's a third-party site and from an Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.)
 But we should have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site,
even if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org.  I would like to get the Infra
folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could
probably get other Apache projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only options
are (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our documentation
on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant, should be evaluated.
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of
>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is
>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April,
so
>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of
>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the
>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> @mentors, WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> br,
>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske<harry.metske@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't
stay in
>>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could
release
>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only
~15 fixed
>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but
also:
>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being
outdated
>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer)
>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site
>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651)
>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but
it's been
>>>>>> ages
>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays,
is it
>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be
included
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>>


Mime
View raw message