river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:26:26 GMT
Can we move to git, without moving to GitHub?


A concern I have with moving to GitHub is DCMA take down notices and IP:


The Apache foundation provides us with legal support as well as governance.

I always thought we could find a common code base that people can agree 
on, without hobbling the abilities or ambitions of those that want to do 

The next steps for me, when I have time, will be to update trunk version 
to River 2.3.0 from River 3.0.0, update the release notes, generate and 
sign the release artifacts with our new code signing certs, that Apache 
recently paid for, for our next round of voting.

I'm not ready to admit defeat yet, that's what the attic represents.   
The project has survived longer periods of stagnation or disagreement in 
the past, such as during incubation and become active again.



On 5/07/2016 1:47 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> See https://attic.apache.org/ for an introduction.
> The question I am raising is whether River is viable as an Apache 
> project, not whether it is a valuable body of code. Your second 
> paragraph is exactly my point.
> Apache brings some good stuff to its projects in the form of licensing 
> with carefully controlled provenance and signed, tested releases. The 
> downside is a process that is incompatible with Github, and some 
> bureaucracy around the release process.
> If that is not currently the right trade-off for River the best thing 
> to do is to move to the attic. Any individual, or group of 
> individuals, can download the code and use it any way they like that 
> is compatible with Apache's license, which allows a lot. In 
> particular, people who agree on a direction can start their own Github 
> repository based on the River code. They do have to preserve some 
> notices and make it clear that they have modified the code. See 
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 for details.
> Patricia
> On 7/4/2016 7:49 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote:
>> I am just not that familiar with Apache policy.  However, river is a 
>> real,
>> functional, deployed in use platform.   I certainly agree that there is
>> deadlock at this point in terms of the people and process.  However, 
>> I am
>> not sure that an attic is the right place for a well grounded and 
>> fielded
>> technology.  While the community might not be able to move ahead along a
>> clear roadmap, there is still support from the community for the 
>> technology.
>> Maybe a move to github would help to break things loose?  Open up the
>> development and release process more?  Right now things are hung up 
>> in part
>> on Apache process. Maybe Apache is just not the right place at this time
>> for this technology?
>> Thanks,
>> Bryan
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:
>>> I think it is time to raise on the user list moving River to the attic.
>>> There is no sign of progress on a release. What interest there is in
>>> development seems to be going in different directions. Using 
>>> portions of
>>> River code in other projects would still be feasible with it in the 
>>> attic,
>>> but there would be no need for a PMC, and board reports.
>>> Patricia
>>> On 7/4/2016 6:44 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> But then again, there are a lot of people reading this, and a big part
>>>> of them having no interest at all in incompatible improvements, and i
>>>> see no other option than leaving them behind, with a jini compatible
>>>> maintenance release. This will certainly tear the river community 
>>>> apart,
>>>> or at least cause a lot of friction. So when i see only the two of us,
>>>> moving in a new direction, i can't help feeling, what is the use of it
>>>> all.
>>>> G. Simon

View raw message