Dain,
No, i did not say we should avoid the incubator. It's just that the
piece of code we are talking about in both cases, seem un-usable w/o
geronimo. so a standalone project with its own infrastructure
(svn/committers/wiki/mailinglists etc) seems unnecessary. since most
of the work in those 2 will impact geronimo and changes to geronimo
will impact those 2. it just seems natural to share the mailing list
and svn notifications and not have a separate infrastructure. so that
leaves us with just the ACL.....
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dims,
>
> Can you be more specific? I don't want to put words in your mouth,
> but it seems like you are suggesting we should avoid the incubator.
> Is that what you are saying? If so, why? I am under the impression
> that this is exactly what the incubator is designed to do.
>
> I'm really interested in everyone's opinion, which is why I'm trying
> to stay out of the discussion for a while. I have seen a few
> comments like this in this discussion, but no one is being specific.
>
> TIA
>
> -dain
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Aaron,
> >
> > I have gotten quite a few projects processed thru incubator...so
> > please follow my advice :)
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>
> >>> PMC's can maintain separate ACL's for each svn thingy. Get them to
> >>> become Apache committers, setup a separate svn area for them to
> >>> work.
> >>> Then VOTE them into regular geronimo project when you think they are
> >>> ready (each person on their merit).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry, I must have misunderstood your previous line '+1 to
> >> accept
> >> new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers' -- I thought by
> >> "regular" you meant "completely unrestricted".
> >>
> >> I am OK with what you state above, though I still prefer the
> >> incubator.
> >>
> >> Aaroon
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm sorry, I don't agree that donating code should
> >>>> entitle a
> >>>> company to nominate committers. Even separating the issue of
> >>>> donating
> >>>> code, I don't like adding committers when we don't know them,
> >>>> aren't
> >>>> familiar with their work, etc. I think it will be hard to
> >>>> convince me
> >>>> otherwise, but I am known to be conservative in this regard. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Given the above, I prefer the incubator because we can
> >>>> all get to
> >>>> know each other there, the people who know the code can have
> >>>> immediate
> >>>> commit on the code (as can interested Geronimo folks), we can start
> >>>> working and evaluate the donation before deciding where it belongs
> >>>> long-term, etc. It would be slightly more difficult to
> >>>> integrate with
> >>>> Geronimo for testing purposes, but we face similar issues with
> >>>> OpenEJB and
> >>>> TranQL already. On this, I am willing to be convinced that some
> >>>> kind of
> >>>> Geronimo sub-area is best, but I think the incubator is better as a
> >>>> general rule.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for why we need general rules, I don't fancy having this
> >>>> extended dialogue every time there's a donation on the table. I
> >>>> used to
> >>>> think we wouldn't have that many donations, but after 2 in the
> >>>> last month,
> >>>> I'm not so sure.
> >>>>
> >>>> And, of course, I support David J's statement of mentoring
> >>>> principles and so on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Aaron
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry
> >>>>> about
> >>>>> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such
> >>>>> that we
> >>>>> can place the code in our SVN.)
> >>>>> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular"
> >>>>> committers (we
> >>>>> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> >>>>> companies)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why is this so difficult?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- dims
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure
> >>>>>> that we've
> >>>>>> provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that
> >>>>>> started
> >>>>>> this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken
> >>>>>> place, I'm
> >>>>>> not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So
> >>>>>> I've got a
> >>>>>> couple of questions:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from
> >>>>>> Gluecode
> >>>>>> as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go
> >>>>>> through
> >>>>>> the Incubator?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
> >>>>>> establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not
> >>>>>> clear on
> >>>>>> why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things?
> >>>>>> IMO,
> >>>>>> rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test
> >>>>>> the waters
> >>>>>> with some code donations before we go so far as to establish
> >>>>>> policies
> >>>>>> and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bruce
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-
> >>>>>> N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> >>>>>> );'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Castor Project
> >>>>>> http://www.castor.org/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Apache Geronimo
> >>>>>> http://geronimo.apache.org/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
