jakarta-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Cooper" <mart...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
Date Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:43:08 GMT
On 9/23/06, Henning Schmiedehausen <hps@intermeta.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be "another
> Jakarta" (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that
> Jakata is always considered a bad example).
>
> On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the
> number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by
> Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects
> (VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same
> goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity)
> will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP.
>
> I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity
> and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the
> new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider "Clustering" a good thing.
>
> Having a small group of related projects available through a single
> point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing.


I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think Lucene is the best
example to point to, though, since it demonstrates how projects can drift.
What I mean is that something like Hadoop should not be part of Lucene, just
as MINA should not be part of Directory. (I think) I understand how both of
these happened, but still, it's something that a Velocity TLP would do well
to bear in mind.

--
Martin Cooper


Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects
> are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta
> would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow "lost" there. A
> project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is
> located somewhere else.
>
> For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net),
> and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation
> of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation
> (surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and
> Click seem to be an even match.
>
> So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another
> Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number
> of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good
> thing IMHO.
>
>         Best regards
>                 Henning
>
>
> On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > This vote closed sooner than expected.  I was traveling and there was
> no
> > > stated deadline.
> >
> > Aw, c'mon.  It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month,
> > and i gave the vote a full week!
> >
> > Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)
> >
> > > I'm +1 and -1.
> > >
> > > I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable.  Not
> > > necessary, but not unreasonable.
> > >
> > > I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
> > > planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
> > > going the wrong direction.
> >
> > Nothing new about it.  Velocity became just such an umbrella under
> > your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
> > VelocityTools?  :)
> >
> > And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
> > that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
> > for Velocity.  There are big differences between being free to invite
> > projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
> > or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
> > Velocity.
> >
> > > If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come
> to
> > > Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
> >
> > And template engines are welcome too, right?  The question is whether
> > being here would be just about them having the foundation and
> > infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too.  If
> > community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
> > organizationally.  So rather than a blanket statement that any
> > Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
> > the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
> > interested in joining the Velocity TLP.  And you, as a Velocity PMC
> > member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
> > decisions.
> >
> > > But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using
> things
> > > that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
> >
> > Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
> >
> > > geir
> > >
> > >
> > > Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > > > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
> > > >
> > > > +1 votes:
> > > >  Nathan Bubna
> > > >  Martin van den Bemt
> > > >  James Mitchell
> > > >  Henri Yandell
> > > >  Jorg Schaible
> > > >  Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> > > >  Will Glass-Husain
> > > >  Torsten Curdt
> > > >  Rony G. Flatscher
> > > >  Jesse Kuhnert
> > > >  Dion Gillard
> > > >  Daniel Rall
> > > >  Matthijs Lambooy
> > > >  Niall Pemberton
> > > >  Claude Brisson
> > > >  Malcolm Edgar
> > > >  Christoph Reck
> > > >
> > > > +0 votes:
> > > > -none-
> > > >
> > > > -1 votes:
> > > > -none-
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
> > > > those votes are binding. :)
> > > >
> > > > thanks, everyone!
> > > >
> > > > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna <nbubna@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
> > > >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
> > > >> umbrella and become their own top level project.  Martin has asked
> us
> > > >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to
> the
> > > >> board.  So...
> > > >>
> > > >> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
> > > >>     http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
> > > >>
> > > >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the
> following
> > > >> thread:
> > > >>     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
> > > >>
> > > >> And the vote happens here:
> > > >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> > > >> [ ] +0 I don't care
> > > >> [ ] -1  I'm opposed to the proposal because...
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> --
> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          INTERMETA GmbH
> hps@intermeta.de        +49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/
>
>       RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development
>    Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Engineering
>
> "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
> public relations for Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard P. Feynman
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message