blob: eeaf768e95d743fef89384820bb38bdc0ca60320 [file] [log] [blame]
APACHE Tapestry INCUBATOR PROJECT STATUS: -*-indented-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004-10-28 06:07:52 -0400 (Thu, 28 Oct 2004) $]
Background:
o See the PROPOSAL file for project details.
Current Project Page: http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
Current License: Apache Software License
Current Copyright Holder: ASF
Project Shepards:
o Andrew Oliver <acoliver@apache.org>
o dIon Gillard <dion@multitask.com.au>
Project Volunteer Contributors:
Pending Issues:
o Distribution
- Create both .zip and .tar.gz distributions
- Sign distributions
- Distribute keys
- Mirroring
Resolved Issues:
o Infrastructure needed:
- CVS setup
- Mailing list setup
- Bugzilla setup
o Gump integration
o Code Audits
- Removed LPGL code and linkages
Project committers (as of 2003-04-25):
o hlship,dsolis,nclayton,rlewisshell,mindbridge,glongman
================
From: "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hlship@attbi.com>
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:58:22 PM US/Pacific
To: <general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
How, exactly, is Tapestry ever expected to exit the proposal stage?
Despite repeated attempts, Tapestry is NOT in BugZilla. We're still forced
to use SourceForge for bug tracking.
Tapestry's mailing lists are not getting archived any more (not since 2/21).
Nobody seems to know ANY of the procedures for getting things done. Nothing
is documented. Simple things like the correct way to distribute a release
(including signing and mirroring) are just "known" by the right people ...
and I don't even know who is in the know.
Andrew and Dion have been helpful, both before the move and after.
The only other accomplishment of the incubation process has been a code
audit that resulted in a shuffling of the libraries checked into CVS and
distributed with the framework.
Jakarta infrastructure is non-existent. Worse, the Jakarta culture
erroneously expects things to get done based on e-mails, rather than
something organized, like using BugZilla to track infrastructure requests.
The Incubator team has yet to provide a time table or a check list to
indicate what the exit criteria are. In terms of Tapestry's commitments to
the Incubator, it looks like we're more than there (based on
http://incubator.apache.org/process.html). In terms of Incubator's
commitments to Tapestry ... that is, to assist Tapestry in moving into
Jakarta, fitting in, and accessing infrastructure; very little has been
accomplished.
================
From: "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hlship@attbi.com>
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:10:25 PM US/Pacific
To: <general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Updated Tapestry code audit
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
I've redone the Tapestry code audit for March, along with notes about what
changed, and why, since February.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Mar2003
Although I was blindsided by the LPGL constraints that came out in the last
few days, I believe Tapestry is fully in compliance at this time. Does
anybody know what license DocBook and DocBook XSL is released under? I
couldn't find it.