>  Perhaps like Justin
> said above, getting ICLAs from the contributors and having the potential
> committer discussion about each of them right away.

Actually, i was also puzzled about this contribution behavior coming from some 
Apache Project Community. I have been investing other Apache TLP works about 
here. They get them involved in through the same git repository, or leave them 
alone, just through one formal link to touch these community projects. But as 
for us, we hope to merge the mature project to our repository, let it under 
Apache RocketMQ’s umbrella. So, that’s why we provided the Github group 
RocketMQ firstly, hoping to gathering them together. We define the mature 
project as those were used in product environment massively, like the 
RocketMQ-JMS and RocketMQ-Console projects from the RocketMQ’s first marathon 
campaign :-)

> 在 2017年3月19日,01:26,Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> 写道:
> Thanks for raising this question, Justin, as there is an important
> distinction here.
> Since the code that was not part of the core RocketMQ and was recently
> moved to the externals project was not migrated as part of the original
> move from Github to the ASF, it must be treated a bit differently. This is
> especially true if folks who are not currently committers to the ASF
> RocketMQ project contributed to that code. We should have taken a more
> formal approach to moving over this code (my mistake for not recognizing
> this sooner). In terms of voting in the folks who contributed to this code
> when it resided at Github vs. now that it resides at the ASF, there must be
> a formal discussion of this amongst the PPMC about these potential
> committers in order to make this decision just like any other potential
> committers.
> It's also important to recognize that the ASF cannot provide the same legal
> guarantees for code that was not officially contributed to the ASF vs. code
> that goes through the proper legal process that has been established over
> the years at the ASF (like the original core RocketMQ code went through).
> This what code grants are all about and an important tenant of why the ASF
> exists. I'm honestly not quite sure what to do here. Perhaps like Justin
> said above, getting ICLAs from the contributors and having the potential
> committer discussion about each of them right away.
> Justin, what are your further thoughts on this second topic?
> Bruce
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> And we want to adopt the same way in the second code marathon:
>>> 1. Launch and develop the sub project in [1] at the initial stage.
>>> 2. Migrate the stable and fully functional sub projects to
>>> rocketmq-externals, meanwhile vote the top contributors as a committer.
>>> Does it ok ?
>> I think I have a couple of issues with this:
>> 1. Code that hasn’t been reviewed for possible IP or legal issues is
>> copied into the Apache repo.
>> 2. We may not have ICLAs for the contributors.
>> 3. You are voting on committer based on their contribution to an external
>> project not this Apache project.
>> What do the other mentors think?
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
> -- 
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder

Reply via email to