Taylor, You guys have been doing a generally excellent job. I was just chiming in on the chance that there was doubt.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:09 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Ted, > > We're being very careful when pulling in additional code by taking steps > to preserve commit history (chain of evidence), and when necessary, > initiate the IP clearance process (haven't had to yet). > Cool. > The latter is kind of a gray area as far as I can tell from questions I've > asked on general@. It seems to be a judgment call based on the size of > the contribution. > It is exactly that. > > If there's anything else we can do to make sure we get these things right, > or do a better job, please let us know. > So far, things are going swimmingly, due in no small part to your efforts. > > -Taylor > > > On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Having a committer sign off on each addition has a very large role at > > Apache. One of the key aspects of Apache software releases is that all > of > > the code is traceable back to the original contributor and there is a > > logical chain that allows Apache to stand behind the licensing of the > code. > > > > This licensing and chain of evidence is a big part of what makes open > > source palatable to risk averse businesses. It is really important to > > maintain. > > > > Storm has a very good record of doing this before being part of Apache > > which makes integration into Apache processes easier, but it is important > > to hang on to that careful approach. > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Exactly. > >> > >> That’s why I proposed that anything that’s brought in require at least > on > >> committer to “sponsor” it: > >
