Future of RAT

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

Future of RAT

jochen-2
Hi,

having just published a release of Apache RAT with the "-incubating"
label, I'd though it is time to discuss the future of RAT. RAT is an
incubator project since 18 months. It is not an overly busy project:
The occasional feature request, which is handled, a bug report from
time to time, and so on. OTOH, it definitely lives: People are
interested and, what's more, it is very widely adopted by all Java
projects I am aware of and perhaps even by a few non-Java projects. If
there will ever be a migration to a new license like ASL 3 or a
another change of the header policy, then RAT will likely play a very
important part in the process. Even now, the RAT report is carefully
studied as part of every release vote. (Funnily, RAT is very rarely
used to inspect itself, because so far I didn't find a possibility to
run a previous version of the RAT Maven plugin as part of a build. In
fact, RAT is the only project I am aware of, which doesn't publish a
RAT report. :-)

IMO, RAT could very well leave the incubator. It's 10 or so committers
[1] are all part of an organization called ASF since years, so you
might question the diversity, but I don't believe anyone will actually
do that. ;-) The source code has been developed under ASL and by
Apache committers right from the start, so licensing was never an
issue.

The question is: What's the target? RAT is way too small for an
independent project. And I cannot imagine anybody of the current
committers writing board reports. To me, a Rat TLP is no option. So we
have the second possibility: Put it under the hat of another TLP. The
only one that comes to my mind is the Apache Commons project.

But Commons would be an excellent choice: Most, or even all of the RAT
committers are Commons committers as well. Commons was one of the
drivers for integration of RAT into every release build. I admit that
I wouldn't like to change the package name or the Maven group ID
again, but either Commons developers could accept that exception from
the rule or I'd force myself to do the required changes.

WDYT?

Jochen


[1] http://incubator.apache.org/rat/team-list.html

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

jochen-2
Forgot one possible issue: Currently, RAT has its own mailing lists,
which would be unusual for Commons. My personal choice would be to
leave this as it is, but that's of course also subject to discussion.

Jochen


On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> having just published a release of Apache RAT with the "-incubating"
> label, I'd though it is time to discuss the future of RAT. RAT is an
> incubator project since 18 months. It is not an overly busy project:
> The occasional feature request, which is handled, a bug report from
> time to time, and so on. OTOH, it definitely lives: People are
> interested and, what's more, it is very widely adopted by all Java
> projects I am aware of and perhaps even by a few non-Java projects. If
> there will ever be a migration to a new license like ASL 3 or a
> another change of the header policy, then RAT will likely play a very
> important part in the process. Even now, the RAT report is carefully
> studied as part of every release vote. (Funnily, RAT is very rarely
> used to inspect itself, because so far I didn't find a possibility to
> run a previous version of the RAT Maven plugin as part of a build. In
> fact, RAT is the only project I am aware of, which doesn't publish a
> RAT report. :-)
>
> IMO, RAT could very well leave the incubator. It's 10 or so committers
> [1] are all part of an organization called ASF since years, so you
> might question the diversity, but I don't believe anyone will actually
> do that. ;-) The source code has been developed under ASL and by
> Apache committers right from the start, so licensing was never an
> issue.
>
> The question is: What's the target? RAT is way too small for an
> independent project. And I cannot imagine anybody of the current
> committers writing board reports. To me, a Rat TLP is no option. So we
> have the second possibility: Put it under the hat of another TLP. The
> only one that comes to my mind is the Apache Commons project.
>
> But Commons would be an excellent choice: Most, or even all of the RAT
> committers are Commons committers as well. Commons was one of the
> drivers for integration of RAT into every release build. I admit that
> I wouldn't like to change the package name or the Maven group ID
> again, but either Commons developers could accept that exception from
> the rule or I'd force myself to do the required changes.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/rat/team-list.html
>



--
I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye)

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by jochen-2
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> having just published a release of Apache RAT with the "-incubating"
> label, I'd though it is time to discuss the future of RAT. RAT is an
> incubator project since 18 months. It is not an overly busy project:
> The occasional feature request, which is handled, a bug report from
> time to time, and so on. OTOH, it definitely lives: People are
> interested and, what's more, it is very widely adopted by all Java
> projects I am aware of and perhaps even by a few non-Java projects. If
> there will ever be a migration to a new license like ASL 3 or a
> another change of the header policy, then RAT will likely play a very
> important part in the process. Even now, the RAT report is carefully
> studied as part of every release vote. (Funnily, RAT is very rarely
> used to inspect itself, because so far I didn't find a possibility to
> run a previous version of the RAT Maven plugin as part of a build. In
> fact, RAT is the only project I am aware of, which doesn't publish a
> RAT report. :-)
>
> IMO, RAT could very well leave the incubator. It's 10 or so committers
> [1] are all part of an organization called ASF since years, so you
> might question the diversity, but I don't believe anyone will actually
> do that. ;-) The source code has been developed under ASL and by
> Apache committers right from the start, so licensing was never an
> issue.
>
> The question is: What's the target? RAT is way too small for an
> independent project. And I cannot imagine anybody of the current
> committers writing board reports. To me, a Rat TLP is no option. So we
> have the second possibility: Put it under the hat of another TLP. The
> only one that comes to my mind is the Apache Commons project.
>
> But Commons would be an excellent choice: Most, or even all of the RAT
> committers are Commons committers as well. Commons was one of the
> drivers for integration of RAT into every release build. I admit that
> I wouldn't like to change the package name or the Maven group ID
> again, but either Commons developers could accept that exception from
> the rule or I'd force myself to do the required changes.
>
> WDYT?

I would support bringing it into commons.

Niall

> Jochen
>
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/rat/team-list.html

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

kevan
In reply to this post by jochen-2

On Aug 10, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:

> The question is: What's the target? RAT is way too small for an
> independent project. And I cannot imagine anybody of the current
> committers writing board reports. To me, a Rat TLP is no option. So we
> have the second possibility: Put it under the hat of another TLP. The
> only one that comes to my mind is the Apache Commons project.

Has this been discussed within the RAT community? I'd be interested to hear the community's opinion.

Why is TLP not an option? 10 experienced ASF members/committers sounds like plenty of oversight for a TLP...

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
In reply to this post by jochen-2
Hi Jochen,

First off, congrats on even sending this email. I've often wondered by RAT is still lingering in the Incubator when it's been pretty much widely used for a long time, has a functional community, and keeps plugging forward with its mission. So, first off, +1 to getting out of the Incubator, and +1 to the excellent job you guys have done.

However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing anyone on the team that would be able to? Hen files them all the time (well he used to as Attic VP). And the other names I see on that list [1] below are all people I widely respect at the ASF and folks who pop up on board@, members@ and other foundation-wide lists from time to time. I don't want to speak for anybody, but what would be the issue with any of them filing board reports? Or, yourself for that matter? :) You see to get this whole release process thing - how is the board report sent monthly for the first few months, then quarterly after such a big deal? So, what's the problem with being a TLP?

Cheers,
Chris



On 8/10/10 3:40 AM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

having just published a release of Apache RAT with the "-incubating"
label, I'd though it is time to discuss the future of RAT. RAT is an
incubator project since 18 months. It is not an overly busy project:
The occasional feature request, which is handled, a bug report from
time to time, and so on. OTOH, it definitely lives: People are
interested and, what's more, it is very widely adopted by all Java
projects I am aware of and perhaps even by a few non-Java projects. If
there will ever be a migration to a new license like ASL 3 or a
another change of the header policy, then RAT will likely play a very
important part in the process. Even now, the RAT report is carefully
studied as part of every release vote. (Funnily, RAT is very rarely
used to inspect itself, because so far I didn't find a possibility to
run a previous version of the RAT Maven plugin as part of a build. In
fact, RAT is the only project I am aware of, which doesn't publish a
RAT report. :-)

IMO, RAT could very well leave the incubator. It's 10 or so committers
[1] are all part of an organization called ASF since years, so you
might question the diversity, but I don't believe anyone will actually
do that. ;-) The source code has been developed under ASL and by
Apache committers right from the start, so licensing was never an
issue.

The question is: What's the target? RAT is way too small for an
independent project. And I cannot imagine anybody of the current
committers writing board reports. To me, a Rat TLP is no option. So we
have the second possibility: Put it under the hat of another TLP. The
only one that comes to my mind is the Apache Commons project.

But Commons would be an excellent choice: Most, or even all of the RAT
committers are Commons committers as well. Commons was one of the
drivers for integration of RAT into every release build. I admit that
I wouldn't like to change the package name or the Maven group ID
again, but either Commons developers could accept that exception from
the rule or I'd force myself to do the required changes.

WDYT?

Jochen


[1] http://incubator.apache.org/rat/team-list.html

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




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

ant elder
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing anyone on the team that would be able to? Hen files them all the time (well he used to as Attic VP). And the other names I see on that list [1] below are all people I widely respect at the ASF and folks who pop up on board@, members@ and other foundation-wide lists from time to time. I don't want to speak for anybody, but what would be the issue with any of them filing board reports? Or, yourself for that matter? :) You see to get this whole release process thing - how is the board report sent monthly for the first few months, then quarterly after such a big deal? So, what's the problem with being a TLP?

Yep i agree, there are already other small TLPs so it doesn't need to
be an issue, so going TLP does sound ideal.

   ...ant

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Stefan Bodewig
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
On 2010-08-10, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not
> have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing
> anyone on the team that would be able to?

Jochen has sure be joking here.  The team list he pointed at contains at
least two current PMC chairs (haven't checked too closely) as well as a
bunch of former PMC chairs.

To me RAT's scope feels too small for a TLP.

Stefan

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
Hi Stefan,

>> However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not
>> have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing
>> anyone on the team that would be able to?
>
> Jochen has sure be joking here.  The team list he pointed at contains at
> least two current PMC chairs (haven't checked too closely) as well as a
> bunch of former PMC chairs.

Heh, that's what I was thinking.

>
> To me RAT's scope feels too small for a TLP.

I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's required of
all the Incubator projects, but pretty widely integrated (at least in Java
land) outside of the Incubator as a tool to help check ASF policies. To me,
that's a big scope and an important community, and just based on the
telltale signs it seems like a TLP to me.

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Greg Stein
In reply to this post by ant elder
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:58, ant elder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing anyone on the team that would be able to? Hen files them all the time (well he used to as Attic VP). And the other names I see on that list [1] below are all people I widely respect at the ASF and folks who pop up on board@, members@ and other foundation-wide lists from time to time. I don't want to speak for anybody, but what would be the issue with any of them filing board reports? Or, yourself for that matter? :) You see to get this whole release process thing - how is the board report sent monthly for the first few months, then quarterly after such a big deal? So, what's the problem with being a TLP?
>
> Yep i agree, there are already other small TLPs so it doesn't need to
> be an issue, so going TLP does sound ideal.

Yeah. There is no "minimum size" for a TLP. You've been filing reports
to the Incubutor... now you file them to the Board. And "oh no! only
once a quarter!". Heh. If you think an hour every three months is a
hassle, then we need to talk. :-P

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Henri Yandell
In reply to this post by jochen-2
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> If
> there will ever be a migration to a new license like ASL 3 or a
> another change of the header policy, then RAT will likely play a very
> important part in the process.

There's also an SPDX spec coming to describe the licensing in
products; I could see RAT being very useful there as an automatic
checker against some standard approve/no-approve/exception-list rule
set.

> The question is: What's the target? RAT is way too small for an
> independent project. And I cannot imagine anybody of the current
> committers writing board reports. To me, a Rat TLP is no option. So we
> have the second possibility: Put it under the hat of another TLP. The
> only one that comes to my mind is the Apache Commons project.

TLP and PMC are technically different questions. An option would be
for a RAT PMC, but to make its web presence part of Infra or Legal
committees.

> But Commons would be an excellent choice: Most, or even all of the RAT
> committers are Commons committers as well. Commons was one of the
> drivers for integration of RAT into every release build. I admit that
> I wouldn't like to change the package name or the Maven group ID
> again, but either Commons developers could accept that exception from
> the rule or I'd force myself to do the required changes.
>
> WDYT?

+0. I wouldn't want to keep the separate list, package name seems
fine. Commons is a fair choice.

Hen

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Craig L Russell
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (388J)

On Aug 10, 2010, at 7:03 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> Hi Stefan,
>
>>> However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why  
>>> not
>>> have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing
>>> anyone on the team that would be able to?
>>
>> Jochen has sure be joking here.  The team list he pointed at  
>> contains at
>> least two current PMC chairs (haven't checked too closely) as well  
>> as a
>> bunch of former PMC chairs.
>
> Heh, that's what I was thinking.
>
>>
>> To me RAT's scope feels too small for a TLP.
>
> I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's  
> required of
> all the Incubator projects, but pretty widely integrated (at least  
> in Java
> land) outside of the Incubator as a tool to help check ASF policies.  
> To me,
> that's a big scope and an important community, and just based on the
> telltale signs it seems like a TLP to me.

First, congratulations to everyone who contributed to RAT during  
incubation, and especially to those who prepared a release in the  
incubator. That's a big deal.

As to becoming TLP, I agree. As long as the folks who contribute to  
RAT continue to take feedback and make releases I see no reason to  
deny them the opportunity to have a RAT TLP.

There's nothing that I can think of that says a small scope project  
cannot be a successful TLP.

In fact, the small scope helps in one regard: there's not much work  
involved in making board reports.

Craig

>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: [hidden email]
> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[hidden email]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Rahul Akolkar
In reply to this post by jochen-2
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
<[hidden email]> wrote:
<snip/>
>
> WDYT?


I agree with others who've said RAT should consider going TLP.

-Rahul

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Future of RAT

Gary Gregory
In reply to this post by Stefan Bodewig
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 07:00
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email];
> [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Future of RAT
>
> On 2010-08-10, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> > However, I'm not sure I get the whole reasoning below RE: TLP? Why not
> > have a RAT TLP? The overhead of filing board reports and not knowing
> > anyone on the team that would be able to?
>
> Jochen has sure be joking here.  The team list he pointed at contains at
> least two current PMC chairs (haven't checked too closely) as well as a
> bunch of former PMC chairs.
>
> To me RAT's scope feels too small for a TLP.

I tend to agree. Commons seems like a good place.
Gary

>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Future of RAT

Sanjiva Weerawarana
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's required of
> all the Incubator projects, but pretty widely integrated (at least in Java
> land) outside of the Incubator as a tool to help check ASF policies. To me,
> that's a big scope and an important community, and just based on the
> telltale signs it seems like a TLP to me.
>

RAT is a superb tool and its not only for ASF. In WSO2 we have now started
to use RAT on releases .. still early stage (and RAT is finding lots of
issues) but the plan is to incorporate it into the nightly build process so
we catch issue early. I am certain RAT will keep growing to handle more
complexity and scenarios and it makes sense for it to become its own thing.

So totally +1 from me to going TLP.

Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Director & Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation;
http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Director; Sahana Software Foundation; http://www.sahanafoundation.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/

Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Torsten Curdt-3
>> I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's required of
>> all the Incubator projects, but pretty widely integrated (at least in Java
>> land) outside of the Incubator as a tool to help check ASF policies. To me,
>> that's a big scope and an important community, and just based on the
>> telltale signs it seems like a TLP to me.
>>
>
> RAT is a superb tool and its not only for ASF. In WSO2 we have now started
> to use RAT on releases .. still early stage (and RAT is finding lots of
> issues) but the plan is to incorporate it into the nightly build process so
> we catch issue early. I am certain RAT will keep growing to handle more
> complexity and scenarios and it makes sense for it to become its own thing.
>
> So totally +1 from me to going TLP.

I am also +1 for TLP. I don't see how RAT fits the Commons charter.

cheers
--
Torsten

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Matthias Wessendorf-5
In reply to this post by Sanjiva Weerawarana
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's required of
>> all the Incubator projects, but pretty widely integrated (at least in Java
>> land) outside of the Incubator as a tool to help check ASF policies. To me,
>> that's a big scope and an important community, and just based on the
>> telltale signs it seems like a TLP to me.
>>
>
> RAT is a superb tool and its not only for ASF. In WSO2 we have now started
> to use RAT on releases .. still early stage (and RAT is finding lots of
> issues) but the plan is to incorporate it into the nightly build process so
> we catch issue early. I am certain RAT will keep growing to handle more
> complexity and scenarios and it makes sense for it to become its own thing.
>
> So totally +1 from me to going TLP.

same here.
+1 for TLP

>
> Sanjiva.
> --
> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> Founder, Director & Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation;
> http://www.opensource.lk/
> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
> Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
> Director; Sahana Software Foundation; http://www.sahanafoundation.org/
> Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
>
> Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
>



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Future of RAT

Jörg Schaible
In reply to this post by Torsten Curdt-3
Torsten Curdt wrote:

>>> I feel kind of the opposite -- RAT is an important tool that's required
>>> of all the Incubator projects, but pretty widely integrated (at least in
>>> Java land) outside of the Incubator as a tool to help check ASF
>>> policies. To me, that's a big scope and an important community, and just
>>> based on the telltale signs it seems like a TLP to me.
>>>
>>
>> RAT is a superb tool and its not only for ASF. In WSO2 we have now
>> started to use RAT on releases .. still early stage (and RAT is finding
>> lots of issues) but the plan is to incorporate it into the nightly build
>> process so we catch issue early. I am certain RAT will keep growing to
>> handle more complexity and scenarios and it makes sense for it to become
>> its own thing.
>>
>> So totally +1 from me to going TLP.
>
> I am also +1 for TLP. I don't see how RAT fits the Commons charter.

Same to me, +1 for TLP.

- Jörg


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