I have to respectfully disagree. My -1 vote was conditional on knowing exactly how the contribution would be handled (as Om and others have pointed out). I cannot in good faith vote in favor of this without the solutions to the issues laid out being clear in the vote thread.
-----Original Message----- From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Rovira Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 6:49 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex Hi, seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting vote mail. Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch (that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest. Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki. About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a "utilities" project it's sure that his release will be separated from flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have 1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0 beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to start talking about that. So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us know following steps. Thanks 2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> > For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment. But an overall -1 for the lack > of specifics in the proposal. > > Here are the things that are bothering me: > > 1. We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to > donate this code. Were they supposed to mail on this list? Are they > going to stay involved. We would need a champion in the community if > there is going to be any hope of future Swiz releases. > 2. Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz > going forward? There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, > leave alone new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS. The same handful of > committers are juggling all these things today. There is absolutely > no more bandwidth to take on more stuff. > 3. What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is > brought under Apache Flex. That we endorse it or not? What about all > the other frameworks? > 4. What does the Swiz community think of this? Is there a mailing > list that has a similar discussion going on? Or is there no such community? > > Here are the alternatives I could think of: > a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no > explicit promises that we will be making any future releases. If > there is enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent > releases, at which point we could give it a separate Flex repo. > b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to > fork it to a GitHub repo. If they are able to make at least one > release from there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex. > > I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points > and resolve them. > > Thanks, > Om > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude <d...@atheist.com> wrote: > > > Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but > > if that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as > > 'the best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated > > otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those > > frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not > > sure if that is possible at all). > > > > AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing > > AOP compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by > > Roland Zwaga). > > > > Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: > > > I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's > we're > > > seeing. > > > Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe > > > after some discussing with those voting -1? > > > > > > I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. > > > I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own > > > releases and not be part of an SDK release. > > > > > > One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look > > > if a committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that > > > conflict with > the > > > implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the > > > expectation > that > > > some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation > > > of > > AOP? > > > Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets > > > more > love > > > than the other frameworks it could appear to be the "endorsed" > framework, > > > which is what I think we are trying to avoid. > > > > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > > On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, "Jeff Tapper" <j...@spoon.as> wrote: > > > > > >> -1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be > > >> part of > > the > > >> main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM > > >> To: dev@flex.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex > > >> > > >> +1 (binding) > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira > > >> <carlosrov...@apache.org>wrote: > > >> > > >>> After proposal thread > > >>> (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes > > >>> the vote thread. > > >>> > > >>> This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework > > >>> under Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the > > >>> Apache Flex > > >> community. > > >>> > > >>> points to take into account: > > >>> > > >>> * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements > > >>> de SDK with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI > > >>> very simple and well designed. > > >>> * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's > > >>> optional a NOT part of the main sdk. > > >>> * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License > > >>> 2.0, has its community and right now there's no maintenance or > > >>> upgrade since people behind the project is no longer working > > >>> with Flex technology. > > >>> * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. > > >>> * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator > > >>> of > > >>> Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings > > >>> AOP support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to > > >>> Apache Flex since it brings something very new to client web > > >>> technologies and > that > > >>> will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile > > >>> time > > >> weaving). > > >>> > > >>> Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: > > >>> * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same > > >>> situation and this donation could make Swiz the > > >>> preferred/recommended IOC framework of use. > > >>> > > >>> Points to take into account: > > >>> * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is "what to do with it" > > >>> under Apache Flex umbrella. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Please make your vote. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks > > >>> > > >>> Carlos Rovira > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
