I stopped being an officer at Apache for the first time since I became Jakarta chair:
V.P., Apache Jakarta Henri Yandell [June 28, 2004 - July 19, 2006]
Director Henri Yandell [June 15, 2006 - June 5, 2008]
V.P., Audit Henri Yandell [ Jul 19, 2006 - June 25, 2008]
Very close to 4 years.
The argument about a permissive rather than copyleft Java continues to go on. The latest is that Geir has proposed a license for allowing permissive Java (or rather any OSI license) - http://people.apache.org/~geirm/PROPOSAL-NFP-OSI-JCK-20080623.pdf based on the existing license for the copyleft version (OpenJDK/IcedTea).
Geir talks about it here: http://markmail.org/message/a2lywh7g22rp5eeh.
End of the day, Sun think the future of Open Source is the GPL-as-a-defense model and not the being open model.
Gianugo’s wife is expecting. Yet more fodder for a future kids.apache.org to fill in the missing ‘K’.
Probably pretty obvious, but as I’ve been having trouble unsubscribing from lists from gmail, thought I’d share how I ended up doing it. Especially as pine and mutt were both quite unhappy on people.apache.org.
function unsub() {
echo "unsubscribe" | mail -s unsubscribe $1
}
Then type unsub general-unsubscribe@apache.org.
How does this look? Right, or needs some improvement?
Aside from some nice colour etc. The subject of the Apache structure came up in a session and I thought a single image to answer things would be good.
I have the urge to make it larger and cover PRC, Legal, Security, Infra etc. Any thoughts?
This is a thought that I’ve seen people have a lot at Apache. The second keynote at OSBC was on the technology behind CBS. It was the de facto set of technology choices:
Linux, Java, Apache HTTP, Tomcat, Hibernate, Spring, Struts, Lucene, Xerces, Xalan.
60% of that is from the ASF. 99% of the conversation here at OSBC will be about the other 30% (with probably not a lot this year about Java I think). It’s both our charm and our limitation. Our pro and our con. Can ASF things ever be talked about that much without losing that which made them so popular?
Spring of course is the great example of what might be. AL 2.0, yet commercial. However they own all the IP, could SpringSource be SpringSource if Apache held all their original IP? Could SpringSource survive if they donated their code to Apache? [Not that I’m suggesting that - it’s my example for whether Apache could create a JBoss, a SpringSource etc; or whether all the smaller companies trying to get there will struggle. ]
Adding to the list, Matt Mullenweg just became a sponsor of the ASF.
Noticed something the other day while doing some Commons coding.
While at SourceLabs, I got in the habit of attaching my fixes to the JIRA issues before commiting them. This was for two reasons - first it was intended to be a way to remind myself which issues I worked on in the dayjob and which in the nightjob; and second it made it easier for me to apply them to SourceLabs versions if the upstream version didn’t get released. The first reason didn’t stay true completely as I got used to attaching the patches even in the evening.
What I’ve noticed is that I still do it. Furthermore, others seem to do it too though I’ve no idea if I influenced that, or if it was already going on.
Let’s take a step back and discuss the acronyms in the title. Apache Projects operate under either Review-Then-Commit (RTC) or Commit-Then-Review (CTR). Generally it seems that CTR is the usual - namely you commit and others are reading your svn commit when it hits the email list. If they disagree, they complain. Some projects use RTC, which is when you discuss the patch and then apply it - usually it seems either because there’s a lot of emotive feeling on the subject and they want to avoid a commit war, or because the code is very stable and they want to keep it so.
Commons uses CTR, or at least it used to. Now, with this trend towards taking patches through the issue tracker for at least some of the components, we’re doing RTC in a CTR environment and ending up with RTCTR. Namely, a subset work on the JIRA issue, reviewing the patch, and then the whole can do review on the commit when it goes in. ReTraCToR.
Another small tidbit. We (ASF, and other open source projects too), should use git or equivalent distributed repository type for GSOC students. That way we can both give them a good one to one conversation with their mentors, and get them using a source code repository.
Apparently we should be doing this:
“the policy is that any commit of stuff created by someone else must be marked as such, either by ‘Submitted by: ‘or ‘Obtained from: ‘ being part of the log. ”
ie) if applying a patch from an issue tracker, or if applying code that someone else wrote and passed on to you in another way (IM, personal mail, mailing list, git repository).