On 12/13/2013 03:50 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
$ git shortlog -s -e | sort -n -r
172 John Wood <john.w...@rackspace.com>
150 jfwood <john.w...@rackspace.com>
65 Douglas Mendizabal <douglas.mendiza...@rackspace.com>
39 Jarret Raim <jarret.r...@rackspace.com>
17 Malini K. Bhandaru <malini.k.bhand...@intel.com>
10 Paul Kehrer <paul.l.keh...@gmail.com>
10 Jenkins <jenk...@review.openstack.org>
8 jqxin2006 <jqxin2...@gmail.com>
7 Arash Ghoreyshi <arashghorey...@gmail.com>
5 Chad Lung <chad.l...@gmail.com>
3 Dolph Mathews <dolph.math...@gmail.com>
2 John Vrbanac <john.vrba...@rackspace.com>
1 Steven Gonzales <stevendgonza...@gmail.com>
1 Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com>
1 Bryan D. Payne <bdpa...@acm.org>
It appears to be an effort done by a group, and not an individual. Most
commits by far are from Rackspace, but there is at least one non-trivial
contributor (Malini) from another company (Intel), so I think this is OK.
If you remove Jenkins and attach Paul Kehrer, jqxin2006 (Michael Xin),
Arash Ghoreyshi, Chad Lung and Steven Gonzales to Rackspace, then the
picture is:
67% of commits come from a single person (John Wood)
96% of commits come from a single company (Rackspace)
I think that's a bit brittle: if John Wood or Rackspace were to decide
to place their bets elsewhere, the project would probably die instantly.
I would feel more comfortable if a single individual didn't author more
than 50% of the changes, and a single company didn't sponsor more than
80% of the changes.
Personally I think that's a large enough group to make up a Program and
gain visibility, but a bit too fragile to enter incubation just now.
Thierry,
It is important to point out that in the case of Heat, almost all of the
Heat commits prior to incubation came from Red Hat. The team was
diverse, with each of the original core team contributing about 20% of
the commits. But that has significantly changed - now there are commits
from all over the place and our core team has grown to many folks
outside of Red Hat.
The Heat community is much more resilient today then it was in the past,
which is the point multiple contributors/companies bring. But what
brought about this resilience was incubation. If the mission of the
project matches OpenStack, I'd suggest allowing for incubation and see
what happens.
Incubation brings all kinds of goodness to a project. Few companies are
willing to commit engineering talent to work on an OpenStack project
until it has entered incubation. I spent countless hours on the phone
trying to get devs to commit to working on heat prior to incubation, and
it was a nearly impossible task - managers at companies just didn't want
to commit people to work on speculative R&D.
IIRC, there is a way for a project to *exit* incubation if it falls
apart. We should not be afraid of an incubated project failing and
exiting via this already defined (but never used) path.
In this particular case, I believe Barbican is not ready for incubation
because of their dependence on celery, but ultimately I don't make the
decision :)
Regards
-steve
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
