incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <>
Subject Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Date Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:37:29 GMT
Sounds good, and thank you.  I really want to return to coding right now 
(in particular, that Maven pom file), but unfortunately have work 
constraints ATM hopefully I can fix soon.  Moving doc and sandbox to 
Apache would be fantastic IMO, especially more so if the corresponding 
sites on can be shut down as a result--but we don't have any 
control over so we cannot be faulted over its contents 
(Janne has two hats--Apache JSPWiki team member and that of 
owner, but I'm just referring to the first hat that all of us have.)  My 
main concern before doing so is, what do we need to do so that all the 
content on the Wiki is immediately Apache-licensed, and that whatever 
anybody places there automatically becomes Apache-licensed as well?  The 
Confluence Wikis at and are instantly 
Apache-licensed--is there some blurb on the Confluence Wikis we need to 
put on the JSPWikis to ensure that?


On 02/10/2013 02:53 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> Hi,
> ok, retaking the original thread, I'm filling/updating relevant JIRAs now.
> Regarding Java 6 and dropping TranslatorReader I'll asume lazy consensus
> (=nobody has disagreed) and marking them for 2.9.1. I'll tackle them in a
> few days though, to give space to anyone not agreeing on targetting this
> for 2.9.1 release.
> As for the wikis location, how about moving doc and sandbox to apache
> infra? so we can request the VM, begin setting up the wikis etc. I'll also
> ping legal for the issue
> br,
> juan pablo
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Glen Mazza <> wrote:
>> What I'm asking you to do could take as little as 15 minutes.  Outside of
>> a sentence referring everyone to Apache JSPWiki, you're just *removing*
>> links, converting the site to a read-only legacy project page in the
>> process.  If you wish to grant me write access temporarily to,
>> I'll happily get this done.
>> The more you shrink this read-only site, the less there is to maintain and
>> hence the less work you need to do for it. Continuing to maintain the site
>> in a bloated state (do we really need links to dmoz and yahoo?) probably is
>> what's causing you to want to run away from it.
>> Glen
>> On 02/03/2013 12:44 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>> I will gladly send a tarball of the current wiki contents and transfer
>>> the domain to anyone who wants to pick up the site maintenance.
>>> /Janne
>>> On Feb 3, 2013, at 15:10 , Glen Mazza <> wrote:
>>>   "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 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 main should stress that the project has now
>>>> moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions of
>>>> that will be periodically reduced as the information becomes
>>>> obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. 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 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<>  wrote:
>>>>>   I wish Janne, you would have gone through and deleted the
>>>>>> 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today.  Let's shrink the problem
>>>>>> see where we are after that.  At any rate,,
>>>>>> you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us.
>>>>>> 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  *can* be
>>>>>> transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable.
>>>>>> Can the Commons-licensedhttp://doc.**<>
be donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp://
>>>>>>  ?  It would be nice if we could movehttp://
>>>>>>**4/ <>  to the
>>>>>> 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."
>>>>>> necessarily, Apache doesn't,www.**<>
>>>>>> ,,www.** <>,
>>>>>>, and probably many others.  I think the main thing
>>>>>> though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With
>>>>>> two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> that it's better that ASF takes control of - even
>>>>>>> it's nothing but a redirect to or
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons.
>>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<>
>>>>>>>   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 site--as that's
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>   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
>>>>>>>> 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<
>>>>>>>>>   +1
>>>>>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary,
>>>>>>>>>> can't stay in
>>>>>>>>>> the incubator forever...
>>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Harry
>>>>>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez
>>>>>>>>>>> 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

View raw message