On Jul 11, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 7/11/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
Fine : I'm going to suggest
/geronimo/sandbox/misc/SoC
/geronimo/sandbox/donations/trifork
/geronimo/sandbox/donations/ibm
Location within the Geronimo SVN repo is not a big concern to me. What
is a big concern is how we decide to accept it.
Yep. That's why I threw something out there....
as our pattern
- pick one of:
- add separate ACL for each donation in there
- have people from contributing company operate via patches
I would personally lean slightly toward patches, though I
anticipate the donators may prefer ACLs. In any case, if and
when the
code becomes part of Geronimo proper, I think the donators will
need to
qualify for Geronimo commit status as normal.
Right, and that's up to us. "Qualify" is currently subjective.
I'd be happy w/ separate ACLs to let people work as fast and
"normally" as possible, w/o having to wait for patches to be
accepted. There's no danger with SVN. That said, I'd go w/ patches
if that was the consensus.
I lean toward the idea of patches as well. This is the console that
was created by Gluecode so I believe the creators are already
committers. If this assumption is incorrect, can someone please
elaborate further on the state of the code since Gluecode was
swallowed by IBM.
Well.. :) that would only work if we as individuals were
contributing the code, individually or as a group.
Since the code was a work-for-hire produced by us and other people
who aren't Geronimo committers while working at Gluecode and then
IBM, the ownership is clearly IBMs, and I think that it would be too
murky if we did anything other than whatever policy we decide on.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
