On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> I see from the commit list that a new JSF2.0 branch has been created. >> >> I don't remember seeing *any* kind of discussion or even announcement >> about this. While I am happy to see JSF2.0 work going on, this kind of >> approach does not seem to be at all in the "community" spirit. IMO, major >> events like this should be discussed beforehand. > > As mentioned by other people, there was a vote about this a while back . Why > did I create it just now? Simply because my company agreed to provide some > resource to help with the implementation and we were ready to get started.
One might ask here for a CCLA ;-) We did that for Oracle way back, and update once in a while all the contributors, that have signed the iCLA. > >> >> One issue, for example, is that the core-1.2 stuff is currently >> half-way-converted from the trinidad plugins to the myfaces-builder-plugin. >> So now it is branched, any changes need to be applied in two places. > > To be honest, I find this irrelevant, it's a branch, not a trunk and I'll > most likely do some branch merging when core 1.2.x get release and the > plugin might have to change a little to support jsfVersion 2.0. > >> >> In addition, a large amount of code has just been committed by someone >> (slessard) who is not a particularly regular contributor to myfaces. > > I see even less relevance in that statement. > >> >> Where did this code come from? Do we need a code grant for it? Note that >> when code is developed iteratively on the dev list then there is no need for >> a grant. But a sudden code dump is different, even when contributed by >> someone who has signed a CLA. > > The code was coded just yesterday by me and is not much at all, creating > missing classes for the JavaDoc change log is in no matter a large amount in > term of complexity. Also since I was the only author of it (my teammates > will wait until I have added the signatures). There's absolutely no need of > code grant either. I agree on the code grant, b/c of it is really pretty trivial to create those API classes/interfaces (based on the javadoc log, as I said before). @signatures: you mean the iCLA / CCLA, aren't you ? > >> >> And with 3 branches to now maintain, we need to discuss whether and when >> we phase out maintenance of the jsf-1.1 branch. Currently when users provide >> patches in jira, they almost always provide a patch against only one version >> and the committer ports it, which does increase the load on existing >> committers. When do we stop asking committers to do this when patching bugs? > > I can take care of the branch merging, this is how we handled the trinidad > 1.2 branch at first, Adam would do the merging every now and then, so I'm > not asking the committers to do some extra work. yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work there, on the branch. If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO. > >> >> To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, and >> appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed >> implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that "community is >> more important than code", and the "community" aspect here seems to have >> been rather neglected... > > I don't agree at all here. Although it wasn't announced on the dev list, the > JIRA ticket created to attach patches was speciafically for the community. and the branch creation was also discussed. > Code provided by Fujitsu employees will never go through me with direct > commit, it will all be added as patches, even extra tests and documentation > as we want them and everyone else willing to help get the credit for it. we do the same. Folks provide patches and jira tickets to describe the problem. > Furthermore, I personally didn't announce it because the branch will be very > instable for a week or two until we finish adding the missing signatures > (impl might not even always compile). dev@ is a developers community; so that would be fine :-) -Matthias > If community wasn't important in the process we would just have used a > private repository at Fujitsu, worked on it for some time with my team, then > commit some very large amount of code (real large) that would have needed a > code grant, prevented the people to see at what rythm things were > progressing and contributing. The only point I *could* give you here is that > maybe I should have annouced the creation directly on the dev list and point > on the JIRA ticket and SVN url rather than relying only on JIRA ticket > report that get forwarded on the dev list. > > > Regards, > > ~ Simon > >> >> Regards, >> Simon >> > > -- Matthias Wessendorf Need JSF and Web 2.0? http://code.google.com/p/facesgoodies further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
