Aaron Mulder wrote:
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).
It was *our* decision to rely on these projects. I agree we need to be
very careful about what they are in the future, but I don't think it's a
problem with TranQL at the moment. Although we could have considered
TranQL as a problem having seen some troubles recently, I'm sure we will
be able to work them out easily.
Jeremy, would you consider either substantially enlarging the
community of despots for TranQL, bringing it to Apache, or merging
it into OpenEJB?
Do you think that committers behind selected projects would change their
rules to grant commit access only because Geronimo decides to rely on
their work? I don't think so and would be very surprised if they did.
Our approach to work with other projects should be to be in touch with
these projects and the time will show if we earn their appreciation
which would finally result in the commit access.
I remember someone said the commit access should be seen as an
acknowledgement of someone's contribution rather than what project (s)he
represents. I completely second that point.
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)?
In case of the GBean project, it's much better since we don't yet rely
on them as much as we do on TranQL. It's still under discussion whether
it is the way to go or we will reinvent the wheel or come up with a
better alternative.
Aaron
Jacek
