Thanks, that makes more sense. Sounds like you're looking for a way to do github ..err Apache pull-requests, with an email vote for acceptance?
If I've grossly over simplified I apologize, Tom Burton -----Original Message----- From: tetsuo [mailto:ronald.tet...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:46 AM To: dev@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: More experimental code happening at Apache Apache has policies that try to keep legal issues (IP ownership, copyright, licensing, patents) in check. I don't know the specifics, but I think any 'big' chunk of contributed code must be checked before accepted. But, if the incremental development is all done on Apache infrastructure, by official committers, it's probably considered safe. The Apache Foundation doesn't exist just to give a big name to random projects. It exists exactly to handle those legal issues, and shield users from them. The process does cause some inconveniences to developers, but it also protects them from themselves. It is very easy for an individual developer to accept into his github repo contributed code that is tainted with patents and copyright. It probably doesn't cause problems most of the time, because github projects are almost always non-relevant (it's not worth it to sue a project with a single user), but don't you think Apache httpd or tomcat could be potential targets to patent trolls if they didn't have the proper safeguards in place? "The Apache Software Foundation provides organizational, legal, and financial support for a broad range of open source software projects. The Foundation provides an established framework for intellectual property and financial contributions that simultaneously limits contributors potential legal exposure." -- http://apache.org/foundation/ The iBatis project folks didn't adapt to the process, so they moved away (the iBatis brand, however, was kept with the Foundation, so they renamed it to MyBatis). In my opinion, they lost most of their relevance with this move, and I sincerely don't want Wicket to go the same route. So, guys, please don't get too upset with the old geezers from the board :) They have pretty good reasons to require most of these little inconveniences. And I'm sure there is some way to use the modern tools we have at our disposal effectively, in a manner compatible to the process. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Burton, Tom F (DOR) <tom.bur...@alaska.gov> wrote: > I know I'm not an Apache committer or even a regular on these > discussions. But it seems to me this whole conversation is a little > weird. It seems your trying to make "culture" into policy, or more > directly policy that is potentially counter to the current development > culture. If the community is developing experimental code elsewhere > and then contributing it back, shouldn't that be a "Good Thing" (tm) > and encouraged, it seems to me that restricting to Apache Servers > would stifle creativity & hamper development, which are both anathema > to Open Source in general. Instead of forcing a "private experimental" > server, why not just come up with a procedure to easily incorporate > finished modules into Wicket. > > Also Maybe I'm missing the point, but what's Wrong with starting code > in github and/or WicketStuff? Isn't that part of the point of their > existence? Is it a loss of history issue once the code is "imported" > into Wicket Proper? > > Trying to better understand the discussion, Tom Burton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Emond Papegaaij [mailto:emond.papega...@topicus.nl] > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:25 AM > To: dev@wicket.apache.org > Subject: Re: More experimental code happening at Apache > > Martijn and I want to release experimental things in different modules. > For that, they need to be stable enough to release, and it needs to be > certain that they will be continue to be supported for some time to > come, but the code does not need to be finished. For example, the code > I'm currently working on integrating Atmosphere with Wicket will meet > these conditions. > > I do understand Martijn's concerns regarding IP-clearance, but I do > think the current vission of some members of the board is a little > short minded. I read (most of) a discussion about what should be done > when an Apache developer develops code at Github and wants to move it to > Apache. > Although they did not seem to agree entirely, the concenses was that > 'large' pieces of code needed to be cleared before moving it to Apache. > IMHO, this severely limits the freedom of Apache developers. This also > means, your wicket-cdi project will need to be cleared before moving > it to the main Wicket repo, even though you and I are the only persons > that have committed on the project. > > Best regards, > Emond > > On Monday 02 April 2012 10:03:04 Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> from a couple of replies to this thread i am a little confused. are >> we > >> talking about keeping experimental things in different modules on >> master or different branches? >> >> obviously the big problem is that not everyone has access to the >> apache git repo, so projects will still pop up on github, etc, if >> they > >> require collaboration from non-committers. >> >> if, this is directed at committers, there are a couple of issues that >> need to be discussed. >> >> 1) sometimes its not possible to release the code, ie wicket-cdi >> which > >> lacks necessary maven dependencies in central. what do we do in those >> cases? >> >> 2) sometimes a project is just an idea to play with. once we release >> it as a 0.1 module we have to at least somewhat maintain it. and what >> if the idea doesnt pan out, is it ok to just drop the module? what >> happens with the dropped code if someone outside wicket wants to >> work > >> on it, does it move back to github? >> >> -igor >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Martijn Dashorst >> >> <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > The trend seems to be to do experimental things at wicketstuff or >> > personal github accounts with the intention of bringing that back >> > to > >> > Wicket at a later time. IMO this is the wrong way. The Apache Way >> > should be (IMO): also do experimental stuff at Apache, within the >> > purview of the PMC. >> > >> > When things are not mature enough for a 1.0 release, we can either >> > mark it @Experimental or @Beta, or deliver the code in a side >> > project with a version number of < 1.0 until the code is mature >> > enough to be included in Wicket proper. In the mean time, the >> > experimental projects will be released with the wicket proper >> > releases, but with a release version < 1.0, marking them as > unfinished. >> > >> > So for example, a Wicket Push/Comet/Atmosphere project would reside > in: >> > >> > wicket/ >> > core/ >> > extensions/ >> > .../ >> > push/ >> > >> > With a pom that specifies the version as 0.1-SNAPSHOT. When >> > released > >> > it will released as 0.1, and the next version will become >> > 0.2-SNAPSHOT. Iterate ad nauseam, and when the code base is mature >> > enough, reversion to be on par with the proper Wicket release >> > version (e.g. 6.1). >> > >> > The benefits of this are: >> > - no need to go project hopping, there is one central place where >> > we can find Wicket code, proper and experimental >> > - better visibility of the project within Wicket and the wicket >> > community >> > - easier to attract new core developers to Wicket >> > - no need for software grants and 'white washing' of code through >> > the http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html >> > - clearly defined trajectory for code bases developed by Wicket >> > committers to go into core >> > - no need to explain to the board why we have zero commits at >> > apache's git and everything happening outside the purview of the >> > PMC > >> > at external servers >> > >> > Martijn
