incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <juanpablo.san...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: target for 2.9.1 release?
Date Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:56:48 GMT
Hi Glen,

regarding the legal issue of doc, sandbox and www, maybe just changing the
footer to something similar to:

   Unless otherwise noted, contributions to this wiki are licensed
   to the Apache Software Foundation as contributions under the
   Apache License, version 2.0.

could be enough (cfr [#1], thread beginning in [#2]). Let's see legal's
advice (especially for www).


br,
juan pablo

[#1]: http://s.apache.org/1pR
[#2]: http://s.apache.org/Asl


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Glen Mazza <glen.mazza@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> jspwiki.org can be shut down as a result--but we don't have any control
> over jspwiki.org so we cannot be faulted over its contents (Janne has two
> hats--Apache JSPWiki team member and that of jspwiki.org 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
> cxf.apache.org and camel.apache.org are instantly Apache-licensed--is
> there some blurb on the Confluence Wikis we need to put on the JSPWikis to
> ensure that?
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> 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 www.jspwiki.org issue
>>
>>
>> br,
>> juan pablo
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Glen Mazza <glen.mazza@gmail.com> 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
>>> jspwiki.org,
>>> 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 <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.**j**spwiki.org/2.4/<http://jspwiki.org/2.4/>
>>>>>>> <http://doc.**jspwiki.org/2.4/ <http://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/ <http://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.**tom**cat.com<http://tomcat.com>
>>>>>>> <http://www.tomcat.com>
>>>>>>> ,www.pig.com,www.**chemistry.**org <http://chemistry.org>
<
>>>>>>> http://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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message