On 9-May-08, at 2:41 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 09/05/2008, at 6:03 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Ah, hold on there. 1) Since when did accepting new bodies of code
be decided between two people.
It shouldn't be, and IMO this discussion should continue and get
some more opinions (as I said "if there is support here"). After
that, the sandbox is the best starting point and if anything goes
in that is more than James' own work, then the IP clearance papers
should of course be filled in too.
But one standard for everyone, please. You checked in a more
significant contribution without discussion *at all* just a few
days ago (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=653572).
I'm a committer and Ivan did not get access to our repository, and
it was no different then the GIT provider.
The difference was that the GIT provider was discussed and
contributed via JIRA, like all other contributions. The other
provider appeared, on trunk, completely unannounced. It's clearly a
double standard to then turn around and say things like "Since when
did accepting new bodies of code be decided between two people."
My point was not that you two decided to insert the code but that I
objected and that didn't seem to matter at all. That was my point.
What honestly bothers me is a company openly bitching in a
sensationalistic fashion, and then wants to donate code again in a
somewhat sensationalistic manner seems rather odd to me. Especially
given the other options and five minutes after I provide an
alternative which is the path we've been going down James just blasts
the code in anyway appearing to be in a cone of silence with you.
In the case of the last two things I have committed that aren't mine
the SCM provider and much of Oleg's work I know what the outcome would
be because the code is not duplicated, the code is good and if anyone
actually objected I would oblige as I did with the CLA for Oleg's code
which you asked for, and then following the same path for the SCM
contribution getting the CCLA before hand.
But to be absolutely clear, I think the Accurev contribution is
great in the log run, and I'm glad to see Ivan on the lists
supporting it. I certainly have no complaint with them. Let's move on.
Whereas the difference is access to our repository for what is
honestly a duplication of much code that exists, and far less then
something like an SCM provider. There is a stark difference because
I don't freely hand out access. There are alternatives for plugins,
especially given our model is fully distributed, and we already
have a ton of orphaned plugins.
What I checked in was written by the only people in the world with
clear authority to write that SCM provider. Whereas these plugins
largely duplicate what exists. So I think there is a stark
difference.
Firstly, no access has been handed out that wasn't already present.
If you now have a problem with the sandbox openness we instituted as
a group, please raise that separately.
I wasn't debating the relative merits of the two contributions. As
far as I'm concerned, the discussion is ongoing - as I said, the
wagon plugin as is needs some work to be suitable for Wagon, if at
all. I don't want to maintain something that is only duplication
either. The license plugin in particular needs to take a look at
ways to interact with the existing techs rather than being a new
thing (there is also IANAL at Mojo that I just saw), but I think
better license handling is worth pursuing if James has ideas.
Let's just continue that discussion, as two separate threads for
each thing.
Thanks,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
or who has said it,
not even if i have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense.
-- Buddha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
