On 8/12/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've been offered the Eclipse plug-in for Geronimo. You can go back
> and read the threads where the source was discussed, and some of the
> ideas that Sachim has for it..
>
> I'll start a vote on accepting it after we come to some agreement on
> if we should establish subprojects, and if so, should tooling be
> one. I think that we should accept and establish tooling as a
> subproject.
>
> Putting tooling aside for a sec, for something we have a subproject,
> I think we would :
>
> 1) Setup a parallel SVN tree for it, say geronimo/$foo/
> 2) It would have it's own released artifacts and independent release
> cycle.
> 3) It would be wholly under the control and oversight of the Geronimo
> PMC
> 4) It would have it's own webpage on the site (I imagine left nav
> entry for it under a Subprojects heading)
> 5) All geronimo committers would have commit access
>
> The remaining question, as always, is the general one about having
> restricted ACLs for it or not for people that come with the code in
> the case where code and people are offered together.
>
> I would be happy either with extending trust with new people that
> they work on the code they came with and work with existing
> committers on other parts until existing committers are satisfied, or
> starting some system of ACLs.
I'm no longer a fan of ACLs for subsets of information. IMO, we should
either accept people into a project or not. However, I fully admit
that I am dodging the fact that subprojects are standalone projects in
their own right and, as such, each one has its own SVN repo. If all
Geronimo committers have access to the subprojects, should the reverse
be true? I'm not decided on that issue yet.
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/
