On 9-May-08, at 7:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
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.
And further to my point, because you guys initially didn't want to
take the suggestion is that the sandbox is for Apache committers and
James said in IRC that he didn't write that Wagon plugin. So I went
and took a look at the code and it looks written primarily by one
Sherali Karamov who has no CLA on file and he's not in the Atlassian
CCLA. So again just looks a little rushed as you've insisted on this
being the case for everything I've done lately but didn't check in
this particular case. So what's the story here? Why is James checking
in someone else's code as that's not the intent of the sandbox as far
as we setup the parameters. I personally really don't like what just
happened.
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]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
be omnipotent for a while.
-- Jakob Burckhardt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
