[DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
68 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

James Carman
All,

The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
often do we want to do releases?  What else?

Sincerely,

James

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Adrian Crum-3
I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.

Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com

On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:

> All,
>
> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> James
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

James Carman
Collections 4.x, nuff said


On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
> discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
>
> On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> James
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Phil Steitz
In reply to this post by James Carman
On 10/6/13 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
> All,
>
> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
> often do we want to do releases?  What else?

I would say the first two paragraphs under "The Commons Proper" on
the home page [1] state what I have always understood our mission to
be - basically to be a place where reusable Java components are
developed @apache.

We have always really been a loosely federated group of
subcommunities around the individual components, with a fair degree
of autonomy among them.  I have always personally liked that.  Other
than things like the commons parent pom and the PMC itself, the
individual components aren't bound by too many rules or
standardization.  What exactly the components need to do depends on
the component and how often releases are cut depends on the level of
activity on the component and/or needs of users.

Our users come from all over the place - inside the ASF and
increasingly outside.  Our main goal should be to attract more of
them into sustained contribution to the components.  This is hard in
some cases because there is little / no activity on some components
and in some cases we make it harder than it should be for users to
get involved even on the components where there is active
development going on.

I think we would benefit most from three things at this point:

0) Agreeing on what components are dormant and marking those as such
1) Getting a clear understanding of what the real and perceived
barriers are for getting involved as a contributor (note this is not
the same thing as "getting patches committed" though the two are
related)
2) Finish fixing and documenting the build and deployment process so
that cutting releases is easy

OK, that is about my 2c worth :)

Phil

[1] http://commons.apache.org/
See also: http://commons.apache.org/charter.html

>
> Sincerely,
>
> James
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Phil Steitz
In reply to this post by James Carman
On 10/6/13 11:45 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Collections 4.x, nuff said

Huh?  Didn't we release a beta?  We could say the same thing about
math 4.0, pool/dbcp 2.0, etc.  These things are in progress.  They
will get released.  There is activity.  I don't get the big problem
here.

Phil

>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
>> discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.
>>
>> Adrian Crum
>> Sandglass Software
>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>
>>
>> On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

James Carman
The fact that it has taken so long before we got something out for
Collections 4.x is just an embarrassment.  How long has Java had
generics?  What could be causing us to be so slow to get releases out?


On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/6/13 11:45 AM, James Carman wrote:
>> Collections 4.x, nuff said
>
> Huh?  Didn't we release a beta?  We could say the same thing about
> math 4.0, pool/dbcp 2.0, etc.  These things are in progress.  They
> will get released.  There is activity.  I don't get the big problem
> here.
>
> Phil
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
>>> discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>>>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>>>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>>>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>>>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>>>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Christian Grobmeier
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On 6 Oct 2013, at 20:57, Phil Steitz wrote:

> On 10/6/13 11:45 AM, James Carman wrote:
>> Collections 4.x, nuff said
>
> Huh?  Didn't we release a beta?  We could say the same thing about
> math 4.0, pool/dbcp 2.0, etc.  These things are in progress.  They
> will get released.  There is activity.  I don't get the big problem
> here.

When did we start with working on pool/dbcp 2.0?
Seriously we are not really "releasing early, releasing often".




> Phil
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
>>> discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>>>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>>>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>>>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>>>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>>>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

James Carman
In reply to this post by James Carman
Let's take a look:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Aversions-panel

3.2.1 - 4/15/2008
3.2 - 5/14/2006
3.1 - 6/28/2004

We haven't had a release in over 5 years.  The last one (which was a
point release) took two years roughly.  Again, a minor release prior
to that took almost two years as well.  We don't have a good track
record of releasing early and often.




On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The fact that it has taken so long before we got something out for
> Collections 4.x is just an embarrassment.  How long has Java had
> generics?  What could be causing us to be so slow to get releases out?
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 10/6/13 11:45 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Collections 4.x, nuff said
>>
>> Huh?  Didn't we release a beta?  We could say the same thing about
>> math 4.0, pool/dbcp 2.0, etc.  These things are in progress.  They
>> will get released.  There is activity.  I don't get the big problem
>> here.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
>>>> discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>>>>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>>>>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>>>>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>>>>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>>>>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Christian Grobmeier
In reply to this post by James Carman
James,

thank you.

I believe Commons is in a bad shape.

Look at Commons Collections. Before 4 years somebody
said Guava is more modern, he his answer seems to be widely accepted.
http://stackoverflow.com/a/1444467/690771
This guy said we have no generics. What did we do in the past 4 years?
http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22commons-collections%22%20AND%20a%3A%22commons-collections%22

Nothing. At least nothing visible. Its fine we have a beta. I wonder why
we haven't managed
to officially release this? The last release is from 2008.

I did consider to put my JSON component to Commons. But I didn't.
Reason: I really need the component
and I calculated how long it would take to release it here. I thought,
it's not helping me
to develop it here. I simply don't have the time.

I thought a long while about it.

We had discussions like: do we really need Generics? It works without!
Do we really drop an outdated JDK? We might have users
who run JDK 1.3! And so on. Finally this led us to the situation where
almost all of our users seem to have JDK 1.3 and
are not interested in generics - in 2013. The users who want modern
features go to Guava. We maintain legacy code. And seriously, a lot of
code works without generics. This is no reason to not include them.

We discuss magic strings in the sandbox. Why? We don't need to discuss
that. Before we release we can simply check Sonar. Safe the time to
discuss. Fix it or leave it to Sonar to report it.

We seem to think perfect documentation is more valuable then quick
releases. Is it?

We seem to be proud of our build. I am not. It's complex. It's no fun.
Releases should be do-able in a short time, maybe
even automated.

It is so sad that lot of good features like Collections with Generics
were blocked such a long time or drowning in discussions.

I agree we should support old users. But if we don't have the manpower,
we can't support them. They need to accept we are moving on. We are
blocked with our backwards compatible ideas and innovation is far away.

When I spoke to young developers about Commons they asked me if it still
exists. Nobody of them is interested in our community.

For the mission statement I would wish to see things like that:

Commons Components…

…are released quickly and often
…do use modern JDKs and support old JDKs only as long as they are
supported by Oracle
…we make use of modern Java features when they are available
…can be easily released
…can be released without having 100% perfect documentation or perfect
implementations
…are build by Community who wants to learn, experiment and create new
features more than by Community which wants to be backwards compatible
for a long time
…are allowed to release major versions with api breaks as they want

Cheers
Christian



On 6 Oct 2013, at 20:30, James Carman wrote:

> All,
>
> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> James
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Oliver Heger-3
Hi Christian,

Am 06.10.2013 21:44, schrieb Christian Grobmeier:

> James,
>
> thank you.
>
> I believe Commons is in a bad shape.
>
> Look at Commons Collections. Before 4 years somebody
> said Guava is more modern, he his answer seems to be widely accepted.
> http://stackoverflow.com/a/1444467/690771
> This guy said we have no generics. What did we do in the past 4 years?
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22commons-collections%22%20AND%20a%3A%22commons-collections%22
>
>
> Nothing. At least nothing visible. Its fine we have a beta. I wonder why
> we haven't managed
> to officially release this? The last release is from 2008.
>
> I did consider to put my JSON component to Commons. But I didn't.
> Reason: I really need the component
> and I calculated how long it would take to release it here. I thought,
> it's not helping me
> to develop it here. I simply don't have the time.
>
> I thought a long while about it.
>
> We had discussions like: do we really need Generics? It works without!
> Do we really drop an outdated JDK? We might have users
> who run JDK 1.3! And so on. Finally this led us to the situation where
> almost all of our users seem to have JDK 1.3 and
> are not interested in generics - in 2013. The users who want modern
> features go to Guava. We maintain legacy code. And seriously, a lot of
> code works without generics. This is no reason to not include them.
>
> We discuss magic strings in the sandbox. Why? We don't need to discuss
> that. Before we release we can simply check Sonar. Safe the time to
> discuss. Fix it or leave it to Sonar to report it.
>
> We seem to think perfect documentation is more valuable then quick
> releases. Is it?
>
> We seem to be proud of our build. I am not. It's complex. It's no fun.
> Releases should be do-able in a short time, maybe
> even automated.
>
> It is so sad that lot of good features like Collections with Generics
> were blocked such a long time or drowning in discussions.
>
> I agree we should support old users. But if we don't have the manpower,
> we can't support them. They need to accept we are moving on. We are
> blocked with our backwards compatible ideas and innovation is far away.
>
> When I spoke to young developers about Commons they asked me if it still
> exists. Nobody of them is interested in our community.
>
> For the mission statement I would wish to see things like that:
>
> Commons Components…
>
> …are released quickly and often
> …do use modern JDKs and support old JDKs only as long as they are
> supported by Oracle
> …we make use of modern Java features when they are available
> …can be easily released
> …can be released without having 100% perfect documentation or perfect
> implementations
> …are build by Community who wants to learn, experiment and create new
> features more than by Community which wants to be backwards compatible
> for a long time
> …are allowed to release major versions with api breaks as they want
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>
I agree with many of your points. Another example is [csv] which is
about to be released for ages. Here, I think, the main impediment is
that we try to come up with a *perfect* API because due to our rules of
backwards compatibility it is so difficult to correct any mistakes later.

I still think that backwards compatibility is very important, but we
really should define a process which allows us to experiment with new APIs.

As a suggestion to improve this situation, could we agree on an alpha
release process allowing us to push releases with the aim of getting
community feedback? Where we explicitly state that incompatible changes
are possible (and likely)?

We did something similar with [collections] 4, but there were many
limitations (the release was not allowed to be uploaded to Maven central
for instance). If we did such experimental releases more often, there
would hopefully not be the fear of defining a broken API, and we would
see more releases.

Oliver

>
> On 6 Oct 2013, at 20:30, James Carman wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> James
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Phil Steitz


> On Oct 6, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Oliver Heger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Am 06.10.2013 21:44, schrieb Christian Grobmeier:
>> James,
>>
>> thank you.
>>
>> I believe Commons is in a bad shape.
>>
>> Look at Commons Collections. Before 4 years somebody
>> said Guava is more modern, he his answer seems to be widely accepted.
>> http://stackoverflow.com/a/1444467/690771
>> This guy said we have no generics. What did we do in the past 4 years?
>> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22commons-collections%22%20AND%20a%3A%22commons-collections%22
>>
>>
>> Nothing. At least nothing visible. Its fine we have a beta. I wonder why
>> we haven't managed
>> to officially release this? The last release is from 2008.
>>
>> I did consider to put my JSON component to Commons. But I didn't.
>> Reason: I really need the component
>> and I calculated how long it would take to release it here. I thought,
>> it's not helping me
>> to develop it here. I simply don't have the time.
>>
>> I thought a long while about it.
>>
>> We had discussions like: do we really need Generics? It works without!
>> Do we really drop an outdated JDK? We might have users
>> who run JDK 1.3! And so on. Finally this led us to the situation where
>> almost all of our users seem to have JDK 1.3 and
>> are not interested in generics - in 2013. The users who want modern
>> features go to Guava. We maintain legacy code. And seriously, a lot of
>> code works without generics. This is no reason to not include them.
>>
>> We discuss magic strings in the sandbox. Why? We don't need to discuss
>> that. Before we release we can simply check Sonar. Safe the time to
>> discuss. Fix it or leave it to Sonar to report it.
>>
>> We seem to think perfect documentation is more valuable then quick
>> releases. Is it?
>>
>> We seem to be proud of our build. I am not. It's complex. It's no fun.
>> Releases should be do-able in a short time, maybe
>> even automated.
>>
>> It is so sad that lot of good features like Collections with Generics
>> were blocked such a long time or drowning in discussions.
>>
>> I agree we should support old users. But if we don't have the manpower,
>> we can't support them. They need to accept we are moving on. We are
>> blocked with our backwards compatible ideas and innovation is far away.
>>
>> When I spoke to young developers about Commons they asked me if it still
>> exists. Nobody of them is interested in our community.
>>
>> For the mission statement I would wish to see things like that:
>>
>> Commons Components…
>>
>> …are released quickly and often
>> …do use modern JDKs and support old JDKs only as long as they are
>> supported by Oracle
>> …we make use of modern Java features when they are available
>> …can be easily released
>> …can be released without having 100% perfect documentation or perfect
>> implementations
>> …are build by Community who wants to learn, experiment and create new
>> features more than by Community which wants to be backwards compatible
>> for a long time
>> …are allowed to release major versions with api breaks as they want
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
> I agree with many of your points. Another example is [csv] which is
> about to be released for ages. Here, I think, the main impediment is
> that we try to come up with a *perfect* API because due to our rules of
> backwards compatibility it is so difficult to correct any mistakes later.
>
> I still think that backwards compatibility is very important, but we
> really should define a process which allows us to experiment with new APIs.
>
> As a suggestion to improve this situation, could we agree on an alpha
> release process allowing us to push releases with the aim of getting
> community feedback? Where we explicitly state that incompatible changes
> are possible (and likely)?
>
> We did something similar with [collections] 4, but there were many
> limitations (the release was not allowed to be uploaded to Maven central
> for instance). If we did such experimental releases more often, there
> would hopefully not be the fear of defining a broken API, and we would
> see more releases.

+1 let's agree on how to do alphas.

Phil

>
> Oliver
>
>>
>>> On 6 Oct 2013, at 20:30, James Carman wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> ---
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> @grobmeier
>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Jean-Louis MONTEIRO-2
+1, looks like there are plenty of examples.
Agree with Phil, how could we make things lighter or easier?

I mean to get more release out.

Jean-Louis


2013/10/6 Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>

>
>
> > On Oct 6, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > Am 06.10.2013 21:44, schrieb Christian Grobmeier:
> >> James,
> >>
> >> thank you.
> >>
> >> I believe Commons is in a bad shape.
> >>
> >> Look at Commons Collections. Before 4 years somebody
> >> said Guava is more modern, he his answer seems to be widely accepted.
> >> http://stackoverflow.com/a/1444467/690771
> >> This guy said we have no generics. What did we do in the past 4 years?
> >>
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22commons-collections%22%20AND%20a%3A%22commons-collections%22
> >>
> >>
> >> Nothing. At least nothing visible. Its fine we have a beta. I wonder why
> >> we haven't managed
> >> to officially release this? The last release is from 2008.
> >>
> >> I did consider to put my JSON component to Commons. But I didn't.
> >> Reason: I really need the component
> >> and I calculated how long it would take to release it here. I thought,
> >> it's not helping me
> >> to develop it here. I simply don't have the time.
> >>
> >> I thought a long while about it.
> >>
> >> We had discussions like: do we really need Generics? It works without!
> >> Do we really drop an outdated JDK? We might have users
> >> who run JDK 1.3! And so on. Finally this led us to the situation where
> >> almost all of our users seem to have JDK 1.3 and
> >> are not interested in generics - in 2013. The users who want modern
> >> features go to Guava. We maintain legacy code. And seriously, a lot of
> >> code works without generics. This is no reason to not include them.
> >>
> >> We discuss magic strings in the sandbox. Why? We don't need to discuss
> >> that. Before we release we can simply check Sonar. Safe the time to
> >> discuss. Fix it or leave it to Sonar to report it.
> >>
> >> We seem to think perfect documentation is more valuable then quick
> >> releases. Is it?
> >>
> >> We seem to be proud of our build. I am not. It's complex. It's no fun.
> >> Releases should be do-able in a short time, maybe
> >> even automated.
> >>
> >> It is so sad that lot of good features like Collections with Generics
> >> were blocked such a long time or drowning in discussions.
> >>
> >> I agree we should support old users. But if we don't have the manpower,
> >> we can't support them. They need to accept we are moving on. We are
> >> blocked with our backwards compatible ideas and innovation is far away.
> >>
> >> When I spoke to young developers about Commons they asked me if it still
> >> exists. Nobody of them is interested in our community.
> >>
> >> For the mission statement I would wish to see things like that:
> >>
> >> Commons Components…
> >>
> >> …are released quickly and often
> >> …do use modern JDKs and support old JDKs only as long as they are
> >> supported by Oracle
> >> …we make use of modern Java features when they are available
> >> …can be easily released
> >> …can be released without having 100% perfect documentation or perfect
> >> implementations
> >> …are build by Community who wants to learn, experiment and create new
> >> features more than by Community which wants to be backwards compatible
> >> for a long time
> >> …are allowed to release major versions with api breaks as they want
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Christian
> > I agree with many of your points. Another example is [csv] which is
> > about to be released for ages. Here, I think, the main impediment is
> > that we try to come up with a *perfect* API because due to our rules of
> > backwards compatibility it is so difficult to correct any mistakes later.
> >
> > I still think that backwards compatibility is very important, but we
> > really should define a process which allows us to experiment with new
> APIs.
> >
> > As a suggestion to improve this situation, could we agree on an alpha
> > release process allowing us to push releases with the aim of getting
> > community feedback? Where we explicitly state that incompatible changes
> > are possible (and likely)?
> >
> > We did something similar with [collections] 4, but there were many
> > limitations (the release was not allowed to be uploaded to Maven central
> > for instance). If we did such experimental releases more often, there
> > would hopefully not be the fear of defining a broken API, and we would
> > see more releases.
>
> +1 let's agree on how to do alphas.
>
> Phil
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> >>
> >>> On 6 Oct 2013, at 20:30, James Carman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
> >>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
> >>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
> >>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
> >>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
> >>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> @grobmeier
> >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
Jean-Louis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Phil Steitz
In reply to this post by James Carman


> On Oct 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The fact that it has taken so long before we got something out for
> Collections 4.x is just an embarrassment.  How long has Java had
> generics?  What could be causing us to be so slow to get releases out?

I may be in the minority here, but I think the real problem is too many components for too few "committed committers". The release process has always been a little bit of a pain in the butt, but I've never felt blocked by it.  What has taken so long on pool/DBCP is that it is just Mark and I really digging into the code and we are both busy with other stuff / have limited time to work on it. Like some other components, the code is also kind of specialized and the documentation is not the best, making it harder for others to get involved. Collections went nowhere for a couple of years because no one stepped up to drive it.  Thankfully Thomas did recently and we got a 4.0 beta.  The best thing anyone can do to get a real 4.0 out is start actually coding on it.

I honestly think we are making excuses in this thread - the real problem is dwindling component communities.  We need to decide which ones to ale dormant and make it easier for people to get involved in the active ones.


>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 10/6/13 11:45 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Collections 4.x, nuff said
>>
>> Huh?  Didn't we release a beta?  We could say the same thing about
>> math 4.0, pool/dbcp 2.0, etc.  These things are in progress.  They
>> will get released.  There is activity.  I don't get the big problem
>> here.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
>>>> discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>>>>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>>>>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>>>>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>>>>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>>>>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

James Carman
So, would you say we have a problem attracting new committers or are
our current committers just losing interest (or a combination of
both)?

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>> On Oct 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The fact that it has taken so long before we got something out for
>> Collections 4.x is just an embarrassment.  How long has Java had
>> generics?  What could be causing us to be so slow to get releases out?
>
> I may be in the minority here, but I think the real problem is too many components for too few "committed committers". The release process has always been a little bit of a pain in the butt, but I've never felt blocked by it.  What has taken so long on pool/DBCP is that it is just Mark and I really digging into the code and we are both busy with other stuff / have limited time to work on it. Like some other components, the code is also kind of specialized and the documentation is not the best, making it harder for others to get involved. Collections went nowhere for a couple of years because no one stepped up to drive it.  Thankfully Thomas did recently and we got a 4.0 beta.  The best thing anyone can do to get a real 4.0 out is start actually coding on it.
>
> I honestly think we are making excuses in this thread - the real problem is dwindling component communities.  We need to decide which ones to ale dormant and make it easier for people to get involved in the active ones.
>
>
>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/13 11:45 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>> Collections 4.x, nuff said
>>>
>>> Huh?  Didn't we release a beta?  We could say the same thing about
>>> math 4.0, pool/dbcp 2.0, etc.  These things are in progress.  They
>>> will get released.  There is activity.  I don't get the big problem
>>> here.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
>>>>> discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>>>>>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>>>>>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>>>>>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>>>>>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>>>>>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Phil Steitz
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz


> On Oct 6, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The fact that it has taken so long before we got something out for
>> Collections 4.x is just an embarrassment.  How long has Java had
>> generics?  What could be causing us to be so slow to get releases out?
>
> I may be in the minority here, but I think the real problem is too many components for too few "committed committers". The release process has always been a little bit of a pain in the butt, but I've never felt blocked by it.  What has taken so long on pool/DBCP is that it is just Mark and I really digging into the code and we are both busy with other stuff / have limited time to work on it. Like some other components, the code is also kind of specialized and the documentation is not the best, making it harder for others to get involved. Collections went nowhere for a couple of years because no one stepped up to drive it.  Thankfully Thomas did recently and we got a 4.0 beta.  The best thing anyone can do to get a real 4.0 out is start actually coding on it.
>
> I honestly think we are making excuses in this thread - the real problem is dwindling component communities.  We need to decide which ones to ale dormant and make it easier for people to get involved in the active ones.

S/ale/make (love that iPhone :)

>
>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/13 11:45 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>> Collections 4.x, nuff said
>>>
>>> Huh?  Didn't we release a beta?  We could say the same thing about
>>> math 4.0, pool/dbcp 2.0, etc.  These things are in progress.  They
>>> will get released.  There is activity.  I don't get the big problem
>>> here.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
>>>>> discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>>>>>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>>>>>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>>>>>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>>>>>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>>>>>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

James Carman
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> S/ale/make (love that iPhone :)
>

You know, the iPhone studies what words you use most often and assumes
that's what you mean ;) LOL

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Matt Benson-2
In reply to this post by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO-2
Of the various tasks that are part of keeping Commons going:  making
releases, pushing to the website, etc., I feel like there are maybe a
couple of people who feel confident to do each task, and they're probably
not the same people for each task.  I think it could be helpful to
establish a list of what items there are that routinely need doing, and who
knows how to do them *and is willing to help others understand a given
process.*  Making releases seems to be a big pain point--can we identify
what the problems are and improve or fix them?  Is there any of us who
feels super-comfortable with releasing?  Maybe that person could help e.g.
me over IRC next time I want to cut a release.  Hopefully then I'll be more
comfortable and can try to help the next person.  Similarly, I suspect that
some of us are now doing Commons dev using git-svn, and I have the feeling
it would be easier to merge github pull requests using git--is there anyone
willing and able to help me if I run into trouble experimenting with this?

I do think that more than one component has had the wind taken out of its
sails by too much "back seat driving":  anyone, committer or not, should
feel free to voice his opinion on any design decision, but that needs to be
tempered with a respect for the process of do-ocracy.  If you're not
willing to actually step up and do the work, and can't convince
someone-who-is that your concern is important enough that they *want* to
take care of it, don't be surprised when it doesn't get done.  At this
point we'd be better off releasing imperfect code.  Bad code and good
communities, as they say... don't most of us begin participating in OSS
because we're using a library that's *almost good enough* if we could just
get that one bugfix or feature that we want so badly we write it ourselves?
 Our obsession with perfection may be killing us in two ways:  one, we
don't release anything, and two, if we ever did, it would be so perfect
there'd be nothing for a newcomer to contribute!  ;)

Matt


On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>wrote:

> +1, looks like there are plenty of examples.
> Agree with Phil, how could we make things lighter or easier?
>
> I mean to get more release out.
>
> Jean-Louis
>
>
> 2013/10/6 Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
>
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 6, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Oliver Heger <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Christian,
> > >
> > > Am 06.10.2013 21:44, schrieb Christian Grobmeier:
> > >> James,
> > >>
> > >> thank you.
> > >>
> > >> I believe Commons is in a bad shape.
> > >>
> > >> Look at Commons Collections. Before 4 years somebody
> > >> said Guava is more modern, he his answer seems to be widely accepted.
> > >> http://stackoverflow.com/a/1444467/690771
> > >> This guy said we have no generics. What did we do in the past 4 years?
> > >>
> >
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22commons-collections%22%20AND%20a%3A%22commons-collections%22
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Nothing. At least nothing visible. Its fine we have a beta. I wonder
> why
> > >> we haven't managed
> > >> to officially release this? The last release is from 2008.
> > >>
> > >> I did consider to put my JSON component to Commons. But I didn't.
> > >> Reason: I really need the component
> > >> and I calculated how long it would take to release it here. I thought,
> > >> it's not helping me
> > >> to develop it here. I simply don't have the time.
> > >>
> > >> I thought a long while about it.
> > >>
> > >> We had discussions like: do we really need Generics? It works without!
> > >> Do we really drop an outdated JDK? We might have users
> > >> who run JDK 1.3! And so on. Finally this led us to the situation where
> > >> almost all of our users seem to have JDK 1.3 and
> > >> are not interested in generics - in 2013. The users who want modern
> > >> features go to Guava. We maintain legacy code. And seriously, a lot of
> > >> code works without generics. This is no reason to not include them.
> > >>
> > >> We discuss magic strings in the sandbox. Why? We don't need to discuss
> > >> that. Before we release we can simply check Sonar. Safe the time to
> > >> discuss. Fix it or leave it to Sonar to report it.
> > >>
> > >> We seem to think perfect documentation is more valuable then quick
> > >> releases. Is it?
> > >>
> > >> We seem to be proud of our build. I am not. It's complex. It's no fun.
> > >> Releases should be do-able in a short time, maybe
> > >> even automated.
> > >>
> > >> It is so sad that lot of good features like Collections with Generics
> > >> were blocked such a long time or drowning in discussions.
> > >>
> > >> I agree we should support old users. But if we don't have the
> manpower,
> > >> we can't support them. They need to accept we are moving on. We are
> > >> blocked with our backwards compatible ideas and innovation is far
> away.
> > >>
> > >> When I spoke to young developers about Commons they asked me if it
> still
> > >> exists. Nobody of them is interested in our community.
> > >>
> > >> For the mission statement I would wish to see things like that:
> > >>
> > >> Commons Components…
> > >>
> > >> …are released quickly and often
> > >> …do use modern JDKs and support old JDKs only as long as they are
> > >> supported by Oracle
> > >> …we make use of modern Java features when they are available
> > >> …can be easily released
> > >> …can be released without having 100% perfect documentation or perfect
> > >> implementations
> > >> …are build by Community who wants to learn, experiment and create new
> > >> features more than by Community which wants to be backwards compatible
> > >> for a long time
> > >> …are allowed to release major versions with api breaks as they want
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Christian
> > > I agree with many of your points. Another example is [csv] which is
> > > about to be released for ages. Here, I think, the main impediment is
> > > that we try to come up with a *perfect* API because due to our rules of
> > > backwards compatibility it is so difficult to correct any mistakes
> later.
> > >
> > > I still think that backwards compatibility is very important, but we
> > > really should define a process which allows us to experiment with new
> > APIs.
> > >
> > > As a suggestion to improve this situation, could we agree on an alpha
> > > release process allowing us to push releases with the aim of getting
> > > community feedback? Where we explicitly state that incompatible changes
> > > are possible (and likely)?
> > >
> > > We did something similar with [collections] 4, but there were many
> > > limitations (the release was not allowed to be uploaded to Maven
> central
> > > for instance). If we did such experimental releases more often, there
> > > would hopefully not be the fear of defining a broken API, and we would
> > > see more releases.
> >
> > +1 let's agree on how to do alphas.
> >
> > Phil
> > >
> > > Oliver
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> On 6 Oct 2013, at 20:30, James Carman wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> All,
> > >>>
> > >>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
> > >>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
> > >>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
> > >>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we
> want
> > >>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
> > >>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
> > >>>
> > >>> Sincerely,
> > >>>
> > >>> James
> > >>>
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> > >> @grobmeier
> > >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Phil Steitz
In reply to this post by James Carman


> On Oct 6, 2013, at 1:51 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So, would you say we have a problem attracting new committers or are
> our current committers just losing interest (or a combination of
> both)?

I think it's both, but the first is natural / will always be happening.  It's the second that we should focus on  IMO - getting new people involved and progressing to become committers.  Fattening up the subcommunities by existing committers agreeing to focus on a smaller number of components might help if that is possible. And being more open to Christian's points on new approaches / major branches.

Phil

>
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The fact that it has taken so long before we got something out for
>>> Collections 4.x is just an embarrassment.  How long has Java had
>>> generics?  What could be causing us to be so slow to get releases out?
>>
>> I may be in the minority here, but I think the real problem is too many components for too few "committed committers". The release process has always been a little bit of a pain in the butt, but I've never felt blocked by it.  What has taken so long on pool/DBCP is that it is just Mark and I really digging into the code and we are both busy with other stuff / have limited time to work on it. Like some other components, the code is also kind of specialized and the documentation is not the best, making it harder for others to get involved. Collections went nowhere for a couple of years because no one stepped up to drive it.  Thankfully Thomas did recently and we got a 4.0 beta.  The best thing anyone can do to get a real 4.0 out is start actually coding on it.
>>
>> I honestly think we are making excuses in this thread - the real problem is dwindling component communities.  We need to decide which ones to ale dormant and make it easier for people to get involved in the active ones.
>>
>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/6/13 11:45 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Collections 4.x, nuff said
>>>>
>>>> Huh?  Didn't we release a beta?  We could say the same thing about
>>>> math 4.0, pool/dbcp 2.0, etc.  These things are in progress.  They
>>>> will get released.  There is activity.  I don't get the big problem
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> I would like to know the metrics for that conclusion. I see plenty of
>>>>>> discussions and commits, but I'm not seeing any languishing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>>>>>>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>>>>>>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>>>>>>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we want
>>>>>>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>>>>>>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

James Carman
In reply to this post by Matt Benson-2
How about we just switch to git, Matt?  Many projects have already
gone that route.


On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Benson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Of the various tasks that are part of keeping Commons going:  making
> releases, pushing to the website, etc., I feel like there are maybe a
> couple of people who feel confident to do each task, and they're probably
> not the same people for each task.  I think it could be helpful to
> establish a list of what items there are that routinely need doing, and who
> knows how to do them *and is willing to help others understand a given
> process.*  Making releases seems to be a big pain point--can we identify
> what the problems are and improve or fix them?  Is there any of us who
> feels super-comfortable with releasing?  Maybe that person could help e.g.
> me over IRC next time I want to cut a release.  Hopefully then I'll be more
> comfortable and can try to help the next person.  Similarly, I suspect that
> some of us are now doing Commons dev using git-svn, and I have the feeling
> it would be easier to merge github pull requests using git--is there anyone
> willing and able to help me if I run into trouble experimenting with this?
>
> I do think that more than one component has had the wind taken out of its
> sails by too much "back seat driving":  anyone, committer or not, should
> feel free to voice his opinion on any design decision, but that needs to be
> tempered with a respect for the process of do-ocracy.  If you're not
> willing to actually step up and do the work, and can't convince
> someone-who-is that your concern is important enough that they *want* to
> take care of it, don't be surprised when it doesn't get done.  At this
> point we'd be better off releasing imperfect code.  Bad code and good
> communities, as they say... don't most of us begin participating in OSS
> because we're using a library that's *almost good enough* if we could just
> get that one bugfix or feature that we want so badly we write it ourselves?
>  Our obsession with perfection may be killing us in two ways:  one, we
> don't release anything, and two, if we ever did, it would be so perfect
> there'd be nothing for a newcomer to contribute!  ;)
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> +1, looks like there are plenty of examples.
>> Agree with Phil, how could we make things lighter or easier?
>>
>> I mean to get more release out.
>>
>> Jean-Louis
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/6 Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Oct 6, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Oliver Heger <[hidden email]
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Christian,
>> > >
>> > > Am 06.10.2013 21:44, schrieb Christian Grobmeier:
>> > >> James,
>> > >>
>> > >> thank you.
>> > >>
>> > >> I believe Commons is in a bad shape.
>> > >>
>> > >> Look at Commons Collections. Before 4 years somebody
>> > >> said Guava is more modern, he his answer seems to be widely accepted.
>> > >> http://stackoverflow.com/a/1444467/690771
>> > >> This guy said we have no generics. What did we do in the past 4 years?
>> > >>
>> >
>> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22commons-collections%22%20AND%20a%3A%22commons-collections%22
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Nothing. At least nothing visible. Its fine we have a beta. I wonder
>> why
>> > >> we haven't managed
>> > >> to officially release this? The last release is from 2008.
>> > >>
>> > >> I did consider to put my JSON component to Commons. But I didn't.
>> > >> Reason: I really need the component
>> > >> and I calculated how long it would take to release it here. I thought,
>> > >> it's not helping me
>> > >> to develop it here. I simply don't have the time.
>> > >>
>> > >> I thought a long while about it.
>> > >>
>> > >> We had discussions like: do we really need Generics? It works without!
>> > >> Do we really drop an outdated JDK? We might have users
>> > >> who run JDK 1.3! And so on. Finally this led us to the situation where
>> > >> almost all of our users seem to have JDK 1.3 and
>> > >> are not interested in generics - in 2013. The users who want modern
>> > >> features go to Guava. We maintain legacy code. And seriously, a lot of
>> > >> code works without generics. This is no reason to not include them.
>> > >>
>> > >> We discuss magic strings in the sandbox. Why? We don't need to discuss
>> > >> that. Before we release we can simply check Sonar. Safe the time to
>> > >> discuss. Fix it or leave it to Sonar to report it.
>> > >>
>> > >> We seem to think perfect documentation is more valuable then quick
>> > >> releases. Is it?
>> > >>
>> > >> We seem to be proud of our build. I am not. It's complex. It's no fun.
>> > >> Releases should be do-able in a short time, maybe
>> > >> even automated.
>> > >>
>> > >> It is so sad that lot of good features like Collections with Generics
>> > >> were blocked such a long time or drowning in discussions.
>> > >>
>> > >> I agree we should support old users. But if we don't have the
>> manpower,
>> > >> we can't support them. They need to accept we are moving on. We are
>> > >> blocked with our backwards compatible ideas and innovation is far
>> away.
>> > >>
>> > >> When I spoke to young developers about Commons they asked me if it
>> still
>> > >> exists. Nobody of them is interested in our community.
>> > >>
>> > >> For the mission statement I would wish to see things like that:
>> > >>
>> > >> Commons Components…
>> > >>
>> > >> …are released quickly and often
>> > >> …do use modern JDKs and support old JDKs only as long as they are
>> > >> supported by Oracle
>> > >> …we make use of modern Java features when they are available
>> > >> …can be easily released
>> > >> …can be released without having 100% perfect documentation or perfect
>> > >> implementations
>> > >> …are build by Community who wants to learn, experiment and create new
>> > >> features more than by Community which wants to be backwards compatible
>> > >> for a long time
>> > >> …are allowed to release major versions with api breaks as they want
>> > >>
>> > >> Cheers
>> > >> Christian
>> > > I agree with many of your points. Another example is [csv] which is
>> > > about to be released for ages. Here, I think, the main impediment is
>> > > that we try to come up with a *perfect* API because due to our rules of
>> > > backwards compatibility it is so difficult to correct any mistakes
>> later.
>> > >
>> > > I still think that backwards compatibility is very important, but we
>> > > really should define a process which allows us to experiment with new
>> > APIs.
>> > >
>> > > As a suggestion to improve this situation, could we agree on an alpha
>> > > release process allowing us to push releases with the aim of getting
>> > > community feedback? Where we explicitly state that incompatible changes
>> > > are possible (and likely)?
>> > >
>> > > We did something similar with [collections] 4, but there were many
>> > > limitations (the release was not allowed to be uploaded to Maven
>> central
>> > > for instance). If we did such experimental releases more often, there
>> > > would hopefully not be the fear of defining a broken API, and we would
>> > > see more releases.
>> >
>> > +1 let's agree on how to do alphas.
>> >
>> > Phil
>> > >
>> > > Oliver
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>> On 6 Oct 2013, at 20:30, James Carman wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> All,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and we
>> > >>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our mission
>> > >>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
>> > >>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we
>> want
>> > >>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?  How
>> > >>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Sincerely,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> James
>> > >>>
>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> ---
>> > >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> > >> @grobmeier
>> > >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>> > >>
>> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Louis
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Mission Statement for Commons...

Matt Benson-2
I'd be fine with that, personally.

Matt


On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:05 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>wrote:

> How about we just switch to git, Matt?  Many projects have already
> gone that route.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Benson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Of the various tasks that are part of keeping Commons going:  making
> > releases, pushing to the website, etc., I feel like there are maybe a
> > couple of people who feel confident to do each task, and they're probably
> > not the same people for each task.  I think it could be helpful to
> > establish a list of what items there are that routinely need doing, and
> who
> > knows how to do them *and is willing to help others understand a given
> > process.*  Making releases seems to be a big pain point--can we identify
> > what the problems are and improve or fix them?  Is there any of us who
> > feels super-comfortable with releasing?  Maybe that person could help
> e.g.
> > me over IRC next time I want to cut a release.  Hopefully then I'll be
> more
> > comfortable and can try to help the next person.  Similarly, I suspect
> that
> > some of us are now doing Commons dev using git-svn, and I have the
> feeling
> > it would be easier to merge github pull requests using git--is there
> anyone
> > willing and able to help me if I run into trouble experimenting with
> this?
> >
> > I do think that more than one component has had the wind taken out of its
> > sails by too much "back seat driving":  anyone, committer or not, should
> > feel free to voice his opinion on any design decision, but that needs to
> be
> > tempered with a respect for the process of do-ocracy.  If you're not
> > willing to actually step up and do the work, and can't convince
> > someone-who-is that your concern is important enough that they *want* to
> > take care of it, don't be surprised when it doesn't get done.  At this
> > point we'd be better off releasing imperfect code.  Bad code and good
> > communities, as they say... don't most of us begin participating in OSS
> > because we're using a library that's *almost good enough* if we could
> just
> > get that one bugfix or feature that we want so badly we write it
> ourselves?
> >  Our obsession with perfection may be killing us in two ways:  one, we
> > don't release anything, and two, if we ever did, it would be so perfect
> > there'd be nothing for a newcomer to contribute!  ;)
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> +1, looks like there are plenty of examples.
> >> Agree with Phil, how could we make things lighter or easier?
> >>
> >> I mean to get more release out.
> >>
> >> Jean-Louis
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/10/6 Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On Oct 6, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Oliver Heger <
> [hidden email]
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Christian,
> >> > >
> >> > > Am 06.10.2013 21:44, schrieb Christian Grobmeier:
> >> > >> James,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> thank you.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I believe Commons is in a bad shape.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Look at Commons Collections. Before 4 years somebody
> >> > >> said Guava is more modern, he his answer seems to be widely
> accepted.
> >> > >> http://stackoverflow.com/a/1444467/690771
> >> > >> This guy said we have no generics. What did we do in the past 4
> years?
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22commons-collections%22%20AND%20a%3A%22commons-collections%22
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Nothing. At least nothing visible. Its fine we have a beta. I
> wonder
> >> why
> >> > >> we haven't managed
> >> > >> to officially release this? The last release is from 2008.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I did consider to put my JSON component to Commons. But I didn't.
> >> > >> Reason: I really need the component
> >> > >> and I calculated how long it would take to release it here. I
> thought,
> >> > >> it's not helping me
> >> > >> to develop it here. I simply don't have the time.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I thought a long while about it.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> We had discussions like: do we really need Generics? It works
> without!
> >> > >> Do we really drop an outdated JDK? We might have users
> >> > >> who run JDK 1.3! And so on. Finally this led us to the situation
> where
> >> > >> almost all of our users seem to have JDK 1.3 and
> >> > >> are not interested in generics - in 2013. The users who want modern
> >> > >> features go to Guava. We maintain legacy code. And seriously, a
> lot of
> >> > >> code works without generics. This is no reason to not include them.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> We discuss magic strings in the sandbox. Why? We don't need to
> discuss
> >> > >> that. Before we release we can simply check Sonar. Safe the time to
> >> > >> discuss. Fix it or leave it to Sonar to report it.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> We seem to think perfect documentation is more valuable then quick
> >> > >> releases. Is it?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> We seem to be proud of our build. I am not. It's complex. It's no
> fun.
> >> > >> Releases should be do-able in a short time, maybe
> >> > >> even automated.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> It is so sad that lot of good features like Collections with
> Generics
> >> > >> were blocked such a long time or drowning in discussions.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I agree we should support old users. But if we don't have the
> >> manpower,
> >> > >> we can't support them. They need to accept we are moving on. We are
> >> > >> blocked with our backwards compatible ideas and innovation is far
> >> away.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> When I spoke to young developers about Commons they asked me if it
> >> still
> >> > >> exists. Nobody of them is interested in our community.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> For the mission statement I would wish to see things like that:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Commons Components…
> >> > >>
> >> > >> …are released quickly and often
> >> > >> …do use modern JDKs and support old JDKs only as long as they are
> >> > >> supported by Oracle
> >> > >> …we make use of modern Java features when they are available
> >> > >> …can be easily released
> >> > >> …can be released without having 100% perfect documentation or
> perfect
> >> > >> implementations
> >> > >> …are build by Community who wants to learn, experiment and create
> new
> >> > >> features more than by Community which wants to be backwards
> compatible
> >> > >> for a long time
> >> > >> …are allowed to release major versions with api breaks as they want
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Cheers
> >> > >> Christian
> >> > > I agree with many of your points. Another example is [csv] which is
> >> > > about to be released for ages. Here, I think, the main impediment is
> >> > > that we try to come up with a *perfect* API because due to our
> rules of
> >> > > backwards compatibility it is so difficult to correct any mistakes
> >> later.
> >> > >
> >> > > I still think that backwards compatibility is very important, but we
> >> > > really should define a process which allows us to experiment with
> new
> >> > APIs.
> >> > >
> >> > > As a suggestion to improve this situation, could we agree on an
> alpha
> >> > > release process allowing us to push releases with the aim of getting
> >> > > community feedback? Where we explicitly state that incompatible
> changes
> >> > > are possible (and likely)?
> >> > >
> >> > > We did something similar with [collections] 4, but there were many
> >> > > limitations (the release was not allowed to be uploaded to Maven
> >> central
> >> > > for instance). If we did such experimental releases more often,
> there
> >> > > would hopefully not be the fear of defining a broken API, and we
> would
> >> > > see more releases.
> >> >
> >> > +1 let's agree on how to do alphas.
> >> >
> >> > Phil
> >> > >
> >> > > Oliver
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> On 6 Oct 2013, at 20:30, James Carman wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> All,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> The Apache Commons project seems to be languishing as of late and
> we
> >> > >>> need some rejuvenation.  Perhaps we should try to define our
> mission
> >> > >>> as a project.  What are our goals?  What do we want to accomplish?
> >> > >>> Who are our users/customers?  What non-functional qualities do we
> >> want
> >> > >>> our software to exhibit?  How do we want to conduct ourselves?
>  How
> >> > >>> often do we want to do releases?  What else?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Sincerely,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> James
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ---
> >> > >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> > >> @grobmeier
> >> > >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Louis
> >>
>
1234