[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > In commons you have groups of people each working on few components and
> > > asked to vote for a component they are not directly involved with - this
> > > doesn't sound too good for the quality of the product, does it ?
> >
> > I understand what you are saying, but I think that the judgement will be
> > more about making the component a standalone mini-project under Commons
> > - answering the question 'is this subject appropriate' - rather than
> > some vote of merit. Darwain will take care of the quality issue, I
> > think. No one would use it if of low quality...
> >
> > The committers who built it would still be making the decisions about
> > the component - I can't see how or why you would want to take that away.
>
> Geir, I do agree with that - but read today's mail again...
>
> This whole debate started because some people believe what you are saying
> here can apply only if the "commiters who are making the decision" are the
> commons commiters.
Which decision? The decision to release? To be clear, I think that the
committers who make the decision to release are the component
committers, or another way, the collaborators : the people who are
working on that specific component.
Now, they way I interpreted things, they are really making the decision
to 'apply to commons to accept their component as a separate entity that
those collaborators will support'.
It was up to commons to accept or refuse that 'application'. If
accepted that same group of people would continue on their path...
> A component that is built by a project as part of the sandbox/agora isn't
> supposed to be released to the public - because of quality concerns.
Wait - where did 'because of quality concerns' come from? While I guess
it really depends on how one defines 'released', my interpretation was
that it wasn't supposed to be released for other reasons, such as :
1) there was no visibility. If a tree falls...
2) we decided for a common structure for released components, including
docs, build process, etc - there is no way to have that if it's just
living in the sandbox.
> Yet a
> component that is accepted by commons commiters can be released, even if
> it has a smaller set of commiters and less review.
I think this comes down again to causality - the only way a component
can be accepted by the 'commons committers' and therefore released is IF
and ONLY IF the collaborators of the component (committers for that
component) decide they want to release and THEN ask the 'commons
committers' for a vote.
> I don't have anything against "playground" or against releasing a
> component if it has at least one commited developer behind it. Darwin will
> take care, and users will select.
>
> I have a problem with the playground beeing used as an argument that agora
> is a place for experiments where code can't be released ( even if a top
> level project is supporting it), and I have a problem with arguing that
> a project that wants to release a stand-alone component out of
> sandbox needs to get the aproval of commons.
Well, there are a few things there, I will try to give my opinion of
them individually, and then I am going to bed :)
1) I think it depends upon what a 'released component' is wrt Commons :
if we define a 'released component' as something separate and standalone
with documentation, build proc, etc, and has been approved by the
commons committers as appropriate, the by definition it can't be still
living in the agora. That doesn't negate or diminish Agora - it just
means that 'released in Agora' contradicts the [convenient for me :)]
definition of 'released in the Commons'.
2) What does it mean that a project releases a stand-alone component?
Commons is a project that would be a peer to the 'sponsoring project',
so I don't think that its right that the sponsoring project can
'release' a component w/in commons by fiat. The sponsoring project
could petition commons, like any other component collaborator(s), and if
not approved, could simply take the code and 'release' in the environs
of the sponsoring project.
Thats why I don't think that the phrase about the sponsoring project
releasing is inappropriate.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
