Let me clarify. I think we have two very different code bases here.
The ORB is top-levelable and console is not. By top-levelable I mean
that it is a big standalone code base and can reasonably become a
standalone project. This is also supported by the fact that most ORB
projects in open source are standalone projects and there are many
commercial standalone ORBs. The console is neither. Since these are
very different code bases, I think they need to be addressed
differently:
Console:
We bring the code directly into the geronimo/trunk/sandbox. We work
on the code there, and any people that worked on the code before the
donation, contribute via patches. Once the code is ready, we move
the code to /geronimo/trunk/applications.
ORB:
We bring the code and programmers into the Apache Incubator as a
subproject supported by and destined for Geronimo. We develop the
initial code an community in incubator, and then bring it into the
Geronimo project with a separate SVN location. Once the project
develops a good community of it's own we move the project to a top
level project (this could take several years).
Note: I perceive both of these code bases as special cases and not
precedents. The console is specific to Geronimo and really doesn't
work without it, so it belongs in Geronimo. The ORB supports a large
specification without a (healthy) existing Apache licensed open
source version. If there were an existing apache licensed open
source ORB, I would rather see the code donated and worked into an
exiting project. Alternatively, the group donating the code could
start a new project outside Apache, and develop a healthy community
of it's own. I do not think that Geronimo should ever assist in
undermining an existing (healthy) open source project.
-dain
On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Note I wrote "I believe". Based on conversations I've had and from
what I have seen on this list, *I believe* that this code will
ultimately end up in a subproject.
I guess I'm still not clear on "subproject". You mean like with
its own home page at "http://corba.geronimo.apache.org/"; and
separate JIRA
and all? Or it uses all the same infrastructure as Geronimo but has a
separate /trunk somewhere in SVN?
What are you talking about? We are in a thread to discuss the
specific donation of the IBM console, not a thread to decide a policy
on general code donation and committers. If you would like to
discuss those, please start a new thread and address it directly.
For my part, I'm just as happy to try to set a precendent and
handle the TriFork and IBM donations the same way to start with --
in a
separate SVN area in within the Geronimo SVN repo, either each with
own
ACL or sharing the Geronimo ACL and contributor employees
contribute via
patches. Whether they go on to become "subprojects" or "modules" or
whatever can be decided later, right?
Aaron
