On 10/31/12 12:05 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Cory Johns wrote: > >> I know that licensing was a concern and motivation for splitting things >> out, such as for the SCM tools which we're currently working on breaking >> out of core. > > I'd love to encourage folks to resolve the licensing issues, rather than risk > having a subproject fall into neglect by being elsewhere. > > Cory and I were chatting elsewhere, and I wanted to bring some of that > conversation back here. > > In the case of Apache httpd, there have been extensions (aka modules) that > were developed as separate projects, and in pretty much every case those > projects languished from lack of attention. It could be that other projects > have had more success with this approach, but I've seen the same thing happen > with extension modules on other projects where, because a sub-project was > elsewhere, when that small subset of the developers moved on to other things, > the sub-project was abandoned, but when a sub-project was included in the > main repo (although not necessarily as part of the release) it got all sorts > of attention and new life breathed into it. >
I had been assuming that all the extensions/apps in the Allura repo would be part of a release and available by default. But that's obviously not necessarily true. Any number of extensions could be in the codebase and then our release script or other mechanisms could include "stable" tools and skip "beta" tools by default. I completely understand and agree on the concept of having extensions in the main codebase to encourage their develop and not leave them out on some separate place that potentially languishes. So, then, including the bitergia metrics app would make sense. >> >> Not knowing how it might work with the Apache way of doing things, it seems >> like a Neighborhood for Allura extensions would give a lot of the benefits >> while allowing for things to be separated for licensing concerns. Has that >> been considered as an option? > > > If that neighborhood were hosted on the allura.apache.org installation of > Allura, could we host code there that was not Apache licensed? I presume not, > but if it were in a git repo elsewhere, and it wasn't part of the release, > perhaps that wouldn't be a problem. I don't know if Apache has had a scenario > like that before. > http://apache-extras.org/ is hosted by Google Code for semi-official non-ASF-licensed code (if I remember correctly). My hope is that someday infrastructure could run an Allura instance to fulfill that need for all of Apache. -- Dave Brondsema : [email protected] http://www.brondsema.net : personal http://www.splike.com : programming <><
