All, I would also like to add to a thought to the specific example given by Alex. I think we need to approach feature design and implementation in a manner that does not produce 3 months of effort before it can merged into master. Regardless of where work occurs, 3 months of work (and the associated 1000s of lines of code) going unintegrated is a significant project risk.
Thanks, -John On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:30 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:52:28AM +0530, David Nalley wrote: >> On Feb 27, 2013 10:16 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam" <t...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:21:28AM +0530, Chip Childers wrote: >>>> The TL;DR version: >>>> >>>> The issue that we ran into with several features being developed >>>> "outside the community" for 4.1 was a major deal, and it had several >>>> implications. First, doing that effectively hurts our community. The >>>> other issue is related to the legal right of the project to accept the >>>> code developed elsewhere. >>>> >>> >>> Ok - I read *all* of it and still have a lingering question: >>> >>> What happens to code/docs etc that is released by a commercial entity >>> re-branding ACS with the ASF license before it is released as an >>> official ACS release? Said code was developed per the community >>> guidelines but just was released before the ACS code was released. Is >>> that okay? >>> >>> -- >>> Prasanna., >> >> That is okay. >> We don't care what people do with ACS code. We care that code that comes >> into ACS is developed here. > > Thanks David - everything looks good otherwise. > > -- > Prasanna.,
