Thanks again Andrew. I think I've got what I need to get going. And, for documentation purposes, I already have an ICLA on file with the ASF.
Lawrence "Andrew McIntyre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/07/2008 09:45 PM Please respond to <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject Re: Derby Eclipse plug-in updates On Feb 7, 2008 4:23 PM, Lawrence Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, I've been working on as ASF project for a while now. I'm leading > the Web Services Woden project [1]. On Woden there are developers who > "own" a piece of code in the sense that they know it best and are the > first contact for reviews of patches related to the code. It sounds like > things work a little differently with Derby. In general, the Derby community has discouraged having assigned component owners. That probably is different from some other Apache projects. One of the reasons being to encourage people to jump in and learn about and work on areas they are unfamiliar with, and not be discouraged because someone "owns" an area and think that they'll probably take care of the issue. > Once I have a patch ready for > review is there someone specific I should cc on the Jira issue? Is there > another mechanism by which reviews are requested? (Does someone monitor > Jira updates? Should I post to the dev list?) There's a lot of good info at http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/PatchAdvice The dev list gets all updates to JIRA issues, and most communication on issues ends up going through JIRA. If you edit an issue and click the 'Patch Available' box after you attach a patch to an issue, then the issue is included in the list of JIRA issues with patches that is sent to the list each day. Sometimes that's all you need to do, but if it lingers for a while without any reviews, then a mail to the list asking for a review will usually get a quick response. > >It is derby.jar itself that is packaged as an OSGi bundle. I would > >expect a lot of pushback to renaming derby.jar to something else. :-) > >I think it makes sense to add the new OSGi packaging alongside the > >current set of jars, or is there some reason not to do that that I am > >missing? > > Are you suggesting that the current jars simply be augmented with an OSGi > manifest and, if required, an activator? I'm saying leave the current jars as-is, and make new packages that don't include the current jars, but repackage the classes in a way that follow OSGi and Eclipse conventions. I think this is what you were originally suggesting, but you asked if we needed two packages. I think the answer is yes, we should keep the current packaging (derby.jar, etc.) and improve the OSGi packaging to match current practice. (org.apache.derby.etc...) Most of the issues you mentioned are covered by or mentioned in DERBY-3031. DERBY-631 is probably a good place to start, you should assign yourself to that issue, which covers the basic repackaging. HTH, andrew
