I've been pondering the question for a while now... Up to this point,
the primary individuals involved in the devtools subproject were
either g-users or developers outside the geronimo community and this
gives the illusion that there is a lack of interest in this
subproject which I do not think is the case. So until we start
attracting more "tooling folks" to the community I think development
involvement doesn't necessarily have to start from code contribution,
but it can start from a discussion and requirements perspective. And
I think we are starting to do this. (Dain's and David J's work on
ConfigStore enhancements for example have given them more insight as
to what is being done in this area). As we move forward and we
continue to enhance the integration within the tools and the runtime
more of these discussions will occur making others more tools-aware,
and hopefully this will start leading code contributions. So in
short, I think its just a waiting game and over time I do believe we
can get more involvement in these areas.
- sachin
On May 24, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 23, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Ken, et al,
I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to
the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special
consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees
are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a
very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think
it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based
on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I
don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to
make this work.
IMO, this is a problem with these codebases then... The
3 +1s has been a very solid and reliable benchmark since
before the start of the ASF. What can be done to increase
involvement and diversity in those dev trees?
-sachin
