While I'm sympathetic to your goal here, the committer requirement is
unrealistic in general. I don't think it too likely that any of us
will become cglib committers in the near future, but it is a stable
project with plenty of other users.
thanks
david jencks
On Jul 5, 2005, at 6:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just thinking about the issues of external project dependencies
in
general.. Should there be a process for evaluating the introduction of
new
'critical' dependencies in Geronimo.
I think we should at least ensure that a 'critical' external project
meets
a minimum criteria, for example:
* An operational web site and documentation that describes the
dependency
(more than just a paragraph).
* Operational mailing lists and mail archives
* Operational bug tracking system
* More than one Geronimo committer on the project
Currently some of the projects being discussed in this thread do not
meet
the 'example' criteria above. Just picture yourself as a new Geronimo
developer wanting to get involved. Go to these project websites and
try
looking at the mailing list archives and see how much information you
can
find about the project.
What would be the impact to the Geronimo community if a critical
project
initially met this criterial then stops meeting the 'example' criteria?
Have we identified the risks of depending on 'critical' external
projects.
I'm not saying we shouldn't rely upon them, but at least think about
the
risks and how they can be minimised. For example is it safe to rely
upon
these assumptions?:
* that the project host will always be operating
* that the project host will backup the project source (mistakes can
happen) and that we will always have access to the source.
* that mailing list archives for the project kept by the hosting
project
will always be available.
* that the bug tracking records for the project will always be
available
If Geronimo is integrating best of breed external components, then
IMHO,
the project infrastructure and community around those components
should be
well established.
John
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended
solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or
transmission
error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy this e-mail. Any review, dissemination, use or reliance
upon
this information by unintended recipients is prohibited. Any opinions
expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally.
Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/07/2005
09:08:13
AM:
Changing the subject since we're drifting again. This is related
to another issue that's come up off-list, but we may as well open it
to
a
broader discussion here.
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
TranQL is a Codehaus project so it is down to the despots, currently
me.
The barrier to entry is not high but so far I've not seen anything
except that problematic patch.
Okay. Well, without getting into specifics, I'm not real
comfortable with Geronimo being heavily dependent on a Codehaus
project
with precisely one, er, despot. I feel the same about the GBean.org
kernel, which while not currently a part of Geronimo, will likely be a
candidate for it (and this of course is one of the issues around it).
Jeremy, would you consider either substantially enlarging the
community of despots for TranQL, bringing it to Apache, or merging
it into OpenEJB?
Dain, would you consider either substantially enlarging the
community of despots for GBean.org, bringing it to Apache, or merging
it
into Geronimo (as a branch or sandbox module for the present, I
presume)?
Thanks,
Aaron
