incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Janne Jalkanen <Janne.Jalka...@ecyrd.com>
Subject Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Date Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:44:36 GMT

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 <glen.mazza@gmail.com> 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 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