Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-river-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-river-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FC8A1061C for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 03:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 44486 invoked by uid 500); 8 May 2013 03:56:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-river-dev-archive@river.apache.org Received: (qmail 44241 invoked by uid 500); 8 May 2013 03:56:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@river.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@river.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@river.apache.org Received: (qmail 44190 invoked by uid 99); 8 May 2013 03:56:50 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 May 2013 03:56:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.221.81.30] (HELO fipsb02.cogeco.net) (216.221.81.30) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 May 2013 03:56:44 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EALjKiVHY3VTZ/2dsb2JhbABQwlGBGXSCHwEBBW4bCxIGLkkOLQWHc7JEjnWNWwuBSRaDPwOoX4MqIIE2 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,631,1363147200"; d="scan'208";a="92472410" Received: from d221-84-217.commercial.cgocable.net (HELO 192.168.1.20) ([216.221.84.217]) by fipsb02.cogeco.net with ESMTP; 07 May 2013 23:56:03 -0400 Subject: Re: River Board Report From: Greg Trasuk To: dev@river.apache.org In-Reply-To: <1367919206.8176.386.camel@cameron> References: <1367919206.8176.386.camel@cameron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Message-Id: <1367985009.8176.409.camel@cameron> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.305 Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 23:50:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Having searched the archives of private@, I see that the last change to the PMC was in May of 2012, when Dan rejoined. Greg. On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 05:33, Greg Trasuk wrote: > It's that time again... Any issues or additions to the following? I > need to submit it before tomorrow. > > Question to all - For the life of me I can't find an email with a record > of our last new committer. I think it was Dennis, but I can't remember > the date - anyone? > > Cheers, > > Greg. > > > Apache River is a Java-based Service Oriented Architecture, implementing > the Jini Specification and Jini Technology Starter Kit originally > donated by Sun Microsystems. > > ISSUES FOR THE BOARD > > There are no board-level issues at this time > > RELEASES > > Apache River 2.2.1 was released on May 2, 2013. At time of writing the > release has been approved by the PMC but not announced yet (just waiting > for the distribution mirrors). We also expect to release artifacts for > version 2.2.1 to the Maven repository in the near future (these will be > subject to another release vote as we understand it). The last previous > release was 2.2.0 in July 0f 2011. > > COMMUNITY > > No new committers have been added since Feb 2012, although a couple of > emeritus committers have showed up on the mailing list in recent months. > > ACTIVITY > > There has been significant activity around the release. The 2.2.1 > release was a maintenance release of the 2.2 branch. In the time since > the 2.2 branch there have been a large number of changes to the trunk > code and the QA test code, particularly in regards to concurrency > issues, leading to some debate around the confidence level in the trunk > code. Basically, we feel that we waited far too long between releases. > With the 2.2.1 maintenance release out of the way, the community is > discussing how to proceed with release of the trunk code (which will > likely become the 2.3 stream). Also, we are discussing a switch to > Review-then-Commit procedure on the trunk code (previously we had > specified RTC only on API changes, but Commit-then-Review on the > implementation code). The discussions have been at times spirited, but > generally cordial. > > There have been some suggestions that we should consider switching to > Git for version control. We're watching other project's experiences > with interest. > >