river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <...@dcrdev.demon.co.uk>
Subject Re: Draft Board Report September
Date Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:48:54 GMT
Has this been posted up yet?  Doesn't look like it?

Minor grammatical and spelling suggestions below.....

Mark Brouwer wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Please comment/correct when my view of our progress since the last Board
> report doesn't match the collective view, point out spelling/grammar
> mistakes, or make remarks about the issues worth mentioning I forgot:
> 
> "The last artifact, the QA framework, has been voted in and landed in
> SVN. An automated build environment has been put in place and finally
> all outstanding issues from the Sun issue tracking system have been
> manually migrated in a large group effort into JIRA.
> 

Being picky should be "to JIRA".....

> The River community agreed to do a first release to show the larger Jini
> community it is serious in its efforts. It ain't a very ambitious
> release and will be almost an equivalent of the last release done by Sun
> but includes the ServiceUI code. This release also allows the River
> community to get acquainted and find out about many of the ASF
> procedures. No transformation of the com.sun.jini namespace to
> org.apache.river will take place, but the River community is aware it
> has to do that and will find an opportune moment for that during
> incubation.
> 
> As a side effect of the ambitions for the first release discussions on

Perhaps as a side effect.....

> new functionality don't seem to take off very well, but that time is

don't seem to have taken off very well, instead the time has been used

> used to discuss the process the River project believes it needs to
> establish. Although most committers have expressed their desire to have
> code-review before code is being committed, due to complexity of the

before code is committed

> codebase and the difficulty to test many aspects properly, it seems much
> harder to decide to what extend to enforce that. We are in the process

to what extent

> of finding the right workable process to support those beliefs:
> strong/soft RTC, CTR with the expectation committers know when they need
> a review up-front, or something completely different. It will be
> interesting to see whether the group can come up with a proposal
> finally, or that due to tiredness interest in the subject will fade away
> and we end up what is likely common with most other ASF projects.
> 

end up with what is likely

> US export regulations apply to the River codebase and although discussed
> in the very early days we were living under the (wrong) impression that
> complying to them only applied when we were about to release. We are

complying with them

> aware now we had to take care of it even before the code landed in SVN

aware now that we should have taken care of it

> and we are going to comply as soon as possible."

HTH,

Dan.

Mime
View raw message