Log of the #fcrepo channel on chat.freenode.net

Using timezone: Eastern Standard Time
* ksclarke leaves01:08
* awead joins06:42
* awead leaves07:18
* ajs6f joins07:41
* dhlamb joins08:36
* tolloid joins08:43
* whikloj joins08:45
* awead joins08:56
* awead leaves08:59
* github-ff joins09:02
[fcrepo-module-auth-xacml] awoods opened pull request #37: Minor javadoc fix (master...fcrepo-1613) http://git.io/vqTxP
* github-ff leaves
* awoods leaves09:04
* tolloid leaves09:16
* awoods joins09:17
* awead joins09:19
* tolloid joins
* anarchivist leaves09:24
* anarchivist joins09:25
* github-ff joins
[fcrepo-module-auth-xacml] ajs6f pushed 2 new commits to master: http://git.io/vqkTi
fcrepo-module-auth-xacml/master 62088c1 Andrew Woods: Minor javadoc fix...
fcrepo-module-auth-xacml/master 962f64b A. Soroka: Merge pull request #37 from awoods/fcrepo-1613...
* github-ff leaves
* awead leaves09:27
* awead joins09:29
* travis-ci joins09:32
fcrepo4/fcrepo-module-auth-xacml#69 (master - 962f64b : A. Soroka): The build passed.
Change view : https://github.com/fcrepo4/fcrepo-module-auth-xacml/compare/377491a4d852...962f64b4d0f1
Build details : https://travis-ci.org/fcrepo4/fcrepo-module-auth-xacml/builds/69440144
* travis-ci leaves
* awead leaves09:54
* tolloid leaves09:57
<ajs6f>awoods: I'm not +1ing that proposal until we talk about graduation and deprecating. It was exactly those two things that brought this up to begin with.10:06
<awoods>ajs6f: It seems like a chicken/egg
<ajs6f>awoods: I don't see that. Why?
<awoods>ajs6f: My view is that we need to define the kinds of projects and where they should live before we start defining how they move between those homes.10:07
<ajs6f>awoods: I think we can do that together. In fact, I think we need flexible examples for the latter task.10:08
awoods: We still have no plan for message-consumer.
<awoods>ajs6f: Once we agree on where different kinds of projects should live, then we can say, "Why is message-consumer here? and what is the process for moving it out?"10:09
* awead joins10:10
<ajs6f>awoods: I don't see how the former is necessary for the latter. Helpful, yes, but not necessary. There is no need to answer the question "Why is message-consumer here?" because we all agree it shouldn't be.10:15
<awoods>ajs6f: that is the point of the proposal, to agree what should live where.
<ajs6f>awoods: If that is the only point of the proposal, I would like to accompany it with another that explains how to deprecate and graduate. I don't think it means anything to have categories if you have no way to construct examples.10:16
<awoods>ajs6f: deprecating and graduating is one of many follow-on questions that need to be addressed after the initial agreement on the categories... as noted by the questions at the end of the email.10:19
<ajs6f>awoods: Yes, I saw that. I have no confidence that we will get there if we put it off.
awoods: I don't see what is so difficult about assembling a pair of procedures for this.10:20
<awoods>ajs6f: I agree, answering the questions is critical. However, what is the point of assembling procedures if we do not yet agree that we even need categories of projects?10:21
ajs6f: I am moving this forward in a step-wise fashion.
<ajs6f>awoods: We all do agree on that. We just haven't yet defined their boundaries.
awoods: It's fine with me: it's just a +0 until we have what I consider a complete proposal. I'll give a +1 to _that_.10:22
<awoods>ajs6f: The proposal is an opportunity to bring the community into the conversation/agreement.
<whikloj>ajs6f/awoods: I think you guys are just arguing two sides of the same coin
<ajs6f>awoods: I'm not obstructing this proposal.10:23
<awoods>ajs6f: All I am saying is, "Let's get the idea out there that we are moving towards clearly defined categories as quickly as possible (July 20), then start discussing the associated processes and open topics."10:25
<ajs6f>awoods: I understand us already to have categories, and only to be adding better definition to them. I'm not stopping this proposal. And if history is any guide, discussion will be desultory at best, and we will arrive at the 20th with a general acceptance by inertia.10:27
<awoods>ajs6f: My suggestion is a response to the list along the lines of, "Of course we need to define the categories, but the interesting bits will come in answering the follow-on questions."10:29
* awead leaves10:32
* awead joins10:33
* tolloid joins11:23
* tolloid leaves11:55
* tolloid joins12:52
* tolloid_ joins12:55
* tolloid leaves12:56
* dwilcox joins13:35
* tolloid leaves13:44
* tolloid joins13:45
* dwilcox leaves14:38
* awoods leaves14:39
* awoods joins14:51
* jgpawletko joins15:56
* jgpawletko leaves
* dhlamb leaves16:05
* ksclarke joins16:07
* tolloid leaves16:43
* whikloj leaves16:59
* awoods leaves17:55
* ajs6f leaves17:58
* ksclarke leaves17:59
* ksclarke joins18:14
* ksclarke leaves18:19
* dwilcox joins
* dwilcox leaves18:27
* dwilcox joins18:42
* dwilcox leaves18:44
* anarchivist leaves19:30
* anarchivist joins19:31
* awead_away leaves19:48
* awead joins19:58
* ksclarke joins20:11
* ksclarke leaves20:12
* ksclarke joins20:31
* ksclarke leaves20:44
* ksclarke joins20:58
* ksclarke leaves21:19
* ksclarke joins21:38
* dhlamb joins22:49
* dhlamb leaves23:39

Generated by Sualtam